Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Pensioners' Earnings Rule

Mr. Waller: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are now benefiting from the abolition of the earnings rule.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): About 300,000.

Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the change in the earnings rule, which was long sought by pensioners and the organisations representing them, has proved extremely popular? Does he accept that many pensioners have talents and skills, built up over many years, that are a great advantage to employers? Is not it regrettable that some employers still tend to refuse to consider applications from people over the age of 40 or 45? In considering further improvements to legislation, will he bear in mind the ability of older people to contribute in many different ways during the latter part of their working lives?

Mr. Newton: Subject to my being able to remember every part of the question, I think that the answer is yes to each proposition. I feel strongly that we tend to talk of

people over retirement age as though, in some sense, they are a burden, whereas many are a huge asset to our community. I am glad to say that there are signs that, under the pressure of demographic trends, more employers are beginning to recognise that.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware that the abolition of the earnings rule is no compensation for married-couple pensioners, who have lost more than £20 a week, or for single pensioners, who have lost £13 a week, as a result of pensions no longer being increased in line with earnings? An answer that I have received from the Government shows that up to 67 per cent. of pensioners have a total annual income of less than £5,000 and that many have much less.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, who persistently asks similar questions, equally persistently ignores the fact that as a result of a range of trends, including the growth of occupational pensions and income from savings, pensioners' average net incomes—I emphasise "average"—have risen much faster under this Government and I would acknowledge—I have done so explicitly and implicitly on numerous occasions—that many pensioners have not benefited from those trends. It is right to direct additional resources to them, as we did in October 1989 with a major increase in income support premiums for older and more disabled pensioners. We shall take a further step in that direction in April with the real increase in the basic pensioner premium.

Mrs. Roe: Although the abolition of the earnings rule has been greatly welcomed by pensioners, a number of my middle-aged constituents seek guidance on the Government's view on the equalisation of the state-pension age. Is my right hon. Friend able to comment on this highly complex issue?

Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend says, this is a complex and wide-ranging issue. I do not think that I can add to what the Government said in response to a House of Lords Select Committee last year.

Mr. Allen: The Secretary of State had better get used to persistent questions on the level of pensions from Labour


Members. He realises, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), that single pensioners are now losing £14 a week and married couples £23 a week. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain where the proceeds are—the £23 billion that has accumulated since 1979—of the great pensions robbery?

Mr. Newton: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. We look forward to his incisive questioning in the forthcoming months. He need look only at the extensive publications of statistics and finance that were issued on Friday, on which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) commented, to know that there has been a large increase in social security benefits, in a variety of directions, including, not least, for long-term sick and disabled people.

Maintenance Awards

Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has that under the current system levels of maintenance awards vary significantly around the United Kingdom.

Mr. Newton: A special assessment survey conducted last year, some of whose findings are shown in tables 13 and 16 of volume 2 of the White Paper "Children Come First", showed clear variations, for example, between different kinds of court. Analysis of DSS statistics also shows considerable regional variation in the amount paid under court orders, ranging from an average of just over £13 a week in north-west England to over £20 a week in Scotland.

Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the present system is slow, inconsistent and variable? Is he aware that only about one third of mothers living alone with their children receive any regular payments and that those payments are often considerably less than the fathers could afford? Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that something must be done?

Mr. Newton: Yes. Clearly the present system is unsatisfactory. There is wide variation and, as my hon. Friend said, the system can be slow and sometimes difficult to use. We have set out our proposals for reform, which in general have been widely welcomed. Obviously our proposals contain many points, on which people have commented.

Departmental Relocation

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress his Department has made in relocating work from London to the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): The development of the Department's information technology systems has already enabled us to transfer 1,400 jobs to three social security centres in Glasgow, Belfast and Ashton-in-Makerfield which will handle the backroom work of 21 local offices. In addition, a further 650 jobs from the benefit agency headquarters will be transferred to Leeds from May 1992.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. There can be little doubt that the cities that

benefit from the relocation—Nottingham and Derby are two in my immediate area—find it welcome and recognise the economic benefits flowing from it. Can my hon. Friend tell the House what ongoing relocation will occur in his Department and across the board in Whitehall? What are my hon. Friend's thoughts as to the position in London as a place for the remaining core activity once the main thrust is completed?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend will know that, by 1992, about 80 per cent. of the work force of the Department of Social Security will be located outside London. This is very much a frontline operation in terms of the delivery of service. Many of the remaining core services in London will be handled by branch offices, the number of which will be increased. The objective is to enhance the quality of service and information available to those who seek our benefits.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not object in principle to the relocation, but I seek three assurances from the Minister. First, will he assure me that paperwork and applications originating in London will not be delayed by being transferred out of London and brought back again? Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman assure me that the London offices will not suffer any further neglect of their structure? Many are in bad condition and need substantial improvements such as redecoration and refurbishment. Lastly, and in particular, will the hon. Gentleman assure me that the Thames south and Thames north offices which look after the homeless and those in hostels will not suffer a reduction in service and that the people at the bottom end of the social scale will have at least as good a service as they have now, if not better?

Mr. Jack: I am glad to know that some part of government is popular. Our experience in the three social security centres leads us to believe that, for example, the error rates in terms of income support will drop from 20 to 7 per cent. and that the turnaround will drop from nine to six days—in other words, service will improve.
The hon. Gentleman asked about other London offices. One of the objectives of the benefits agency which I mentioned in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) is to consider carefully the quality of delivery of our service, wherever it is located. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I shall draw that point and his observations on the other London offices to the attention of the agency's chief executive.

Efficiency Scrutiny

Mrs. Currie: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether his Department has made any estimate of the savings to the taxpayer as a result of efficiency scrutinies since 1978–79.

Mr. Jack: Since 1979, 26 such scrutinies looking at both the Department's performance and quality of service delivery have been concluded. These have secured savings of over £145 million. In addition to the formal scrutiny programme, we are constantly looking for other efficiency savings and in 1989–90, these totalled some £60 million, £30 million of which was from purchasing and supply initiatives.

Mrs. Currie: Am I right in thinking that the efficiency scrutiny that has been tackling fraud has enjoyed spectacular success, with savings of about £300 million a year? Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that, instead of going to those who are not entitled to it, the money is now going to those who are entitled to it, especially benefiting those in greatest need?

Mr. Jack: With her characteristic skill and ministerial experience, my hon. Friend has put her finger on the point of the scrutiny process, certainly as regards fraud. She is right to say that if we were not posting back savings of £326 million for the next financial year, we would not have been able to paint such a comprehensive picture in our recent publication on public expenditure. Our objective is to ensure that the right people receive the right help from the benefit scheme.
I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent suggestion about ways in which her own local office might improve its delivery of social security benefits. She will shortly receive in the post news of improvements in her local office.

Mr. Frank Field: Opposition Members welcome any improvement in efficiency and we are also pleased with any crackdown on abuse. In looking at the savings that can be made, however, should not the Government spend more time on a major factor—the national insurance fund? How does the Minister justify the £6 billion lost to the taxpayer through the Government's bribe to people leaving the state scheme to enter the private sector?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman's use of the word "bribe" is uncharitable. He has considerable knowledge of the social security system and he should realise that our analysis of the burden on the diminished work force in 2030 required the Government to take early action on the question of the state earnings-related retirement system. He is right that we must always pay attention to savings made as a result of scrutiny, but in that case, the action that we took was as a result of careful analysis of future trends.

Disability Working Allowance

Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will benefit from the introduction of the new disability working allowance.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Once the new benefit is established we expect about 50,000 people to be receiving disability working allowance at any one time.

Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the new disability working allowance will promote the employment of disabled people and will encourage employers to employ them where, hitherto, they have been somewhat remiss in fulfilling the quotas assigned to them?

Mr. Scott: I believe that the new allowance will play a significant part. I can reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said—that demographic trends will be important in encouraging employers to look beyond the disability that first confronts them to the abilities that often lie behind.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Minister satisfied that employers will ensure that disabled people are offered equality of opportunity and wages in jobs? Surely, one of the most ridiculous aspects of current legislation is that disabled people are offered very low-paid jobs with little incentive for further training. Will he assure us that there will be no repercussions for those who receive housing benefit if they take up the disability working allowance?

Mr. Scott: I wish to encourage to the greatest possible extent absolute equality of employment opportunity for people with disabilities. I urge employers and other agencies to ensure that that is possible. I suspect that there will always remain a group of people with disabilities who will be at a disadvantage one way or another. The benefit is being introduced so that the earnings that they have, which may be lower than those of able-bodied people in certain circumstances, can be topped up so that they can enjoy a proper job at a proper level of income.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend accept that spending in real terms has risen by 100 per cent. since 1978–79 and that that is a remarkable achievement by the Government?

Mr. Scott: I reckon that it must be 100 per cent. by now as it was 98 per cent. several months ago. That shows the Government's commitment to the interests of the long-term sick and disabled.

Mr. Alfred Morris: If the DWA is so good, why are the national organisations that speak for disabled people so united in their strong criticism of proposals for the allowance which, as the Minister knows, they see as family credits without the families? How can the Minister justify marginal tax rates as high as 94 per cent. for disabled recipients when any such imposition would be described as confiscation by non-disabled people? Will he also confirm that the allowance will ultimately be a cost saving to the Government?

Mr. Scott: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is so grudging about a radical and innovatory effort to ensure that those people with disabilities who want to work and are able to work can get into work. Many of them may come into work for the first time with earnings topped up by DWA. They will eventually be able to improve their position so that they work to the fullest extent possible. Although organisations for the disabled might like the benefit to be more generous than it is at the moment, the majority of the people to whom I have talked welcome its concept warmly.

Poland and Czechoslovakia

Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what help has been given to Poland and Czechoslovakia to assist them with the setting up of social security systems.

Mr. Jack: Both Poland and Czechoslovakia are working to restructure their social security systems to be based on a contributory principle and in response to requests for help in that endeavour our officials have visited both countries. In addition, three senior officials from Czechoslovakia recently spent time visiting several of our offices.

Dr. Clark: When discussing social security systems with representatives from Poland and Czechoslovakia, has my hon. Friend brought to their attention the so-called workfare system in the United States? Does he agree that workfare would avoid the Czechs and the Poles inheriting the extremes of our social security system and perhaps help them avoid having a litter-strewn country like ours by allowing more people to work for the benefit that they are receiving?

Mr. Jack: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend, but I should make it clear that we have been asked to assist Poland, Czechoslovakia and other eastern European countries in terms of methodologies and systems required to reconstruct and develop a social security system. In many eastern European countries, the concept of unemployment was officially unknown but they are now having to deal with that problem. It is not for us to determine what their policy should be, but to help them to deliver an efficient form of benefit where they believe that that is required.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister made it clear that computerisation in this area in the United Kingdom has not been too successful, that there are many errors and that those countries in eastern Europe should be aware of that when they decide what technology they want to purchase? While I recognise that those problems can be resolved, will the Minister assure us that those countries will not be misled into buying equipment the software for which breaks down, as it has done in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Jack: I admire the hon. Gentleman's attempt to juxtapose problems with our social security system with those in eastern Europe. However, the hon. Gentleman may be somewhat behind the times in terms of the development of our information technology. In my constituency, the centre for the information technology services agency, which I visited recently, has palpably demonstrated the great improvements in the subsequent development of the local office system in this country. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my earlier reply, he would have learnt that in social security centres in places like Ashton-in-Makerfield, we are already seeing dramatic drops in error rates when dealing with benefit. I am sure that those lessons will not be lost on those eastern European countries that are seeking our help enthusiastically in the area of information technology.

Social Fund

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to solve problems resulting from the increase of refusals of social fund grants and loans.

Mr. Scott: In the first nine months of this year, 38 per cent. of decisions on applications to the social fund resulted in a refusal. That is the same as the overall rate for last year.

Mr. Wray: I cannot agree with the Minister's figures. The Observer has clearly reported that there has been a 60 per cent. increase in grant refusals and a 50 per cent. increase in loan refusals. Does the Minister agree that that is a shocking state of affairs with regard to the social fund? It has been used and abused for the most vulnerable people in society. There is £3,500 million in the contingency fund.

Surely the Government are aware that one in four children in Scotland live in households that depend on income support. Will the Minister persuade the Government to give him more resources? Since 1988, because of social fund refusals they have made a saving of £2·5 million.

Mr. Scott: My experience of the social fund is that it has responded flexibly and fairly to those who need extra help beyond that of the normal provisions of the income support system. The hon. Gentleman's own constituency has the highest social fund allocation per capita—about two and a half times the average for Britain as a whole.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: While I accept that a grant-based system meant runaway costs that no Government could continue, what should I say to an old man in my constituency, with savings of less than £200, who applied to the social fund for a bed and was told to use those savings?

Mr. Scott: Those are matters for social fund officers in the first instance. My hon. Friend will know that there is provision first for an immediate review and then for an appeal to social fund inspectors if people are dissatisfied with individual decisions. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that, in 1989–90, 35,000 people who applied for loans from the social fund were awarded grants instead.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that, under the notorious social fund, 3 million of the poorest pensioners are freezing in the coldest snap for four years? Does he accept that the Government's severe weather payments system is riddled with unfairness because the criteria are far too restrictive, because hundreds of thousands of those on the lowest incomes are excluded, and because it is paid retrospectively so that pensioners dare not spend the money when they really need to? Is not it a shame that the Government can suddenly find £1·5 billion to spend on the Gulf and yet, at the same time, can spend only peanuts to stop old people freezing, in some cases to death?

Mr. Scott: I am not quite sure what to read into the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's comments about what the Labour Front Bench's reaction would be, if it were under the hon. Gentleman's influence, to the crisis that confronts us in the Gulf. I do not accept the description of the social fund as notorious. About 3·3 million grants and loans have been paid out to the most needy people in our society as a result of its operation.
We introduced the cold weather payments system some years ago and we have since developed it in several ways. We have, of course, had some mild winters recently, which may have reduced overall expenditure on cold weather payments, but I am confident that we shall be able to respond to the needs of people on income support who have children in the family or who have pensioners or disabled people within the household. They will be helped by the scheme.

Sir Robert McCrindle: While I accept what my hon. Friend the Minister says about the social fund, is not it a fact that, as grants tend to be replaced by loans and as the same beneficiaries tend to make applications year after year, over a period the cumulative interest which many will find impossible to pay will create a situation to which we shall need to turn our attention?

Mr. Scott: With respect to my hon. Friend, if further loans are made to somebody they are not expected to repay the second loan until the first has been completed. Of course, there is no question of interest being charged on any of the loans—they are all interest-free.

Child Benefit

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends to make any changes to child benefit.

Mr. Newton: I have already announced that, from April, an extra £1 a week will go to the eldest eligible child.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister agree that a Government who can subsidise chemical plant construction in Iraq to the tune of several hundred million pounds during the 1980s have no need to cheat children of £2·30 per week by freezing child benefit as they have since 1987?

Mr. Newton: What the Government have done—there has been no mystery about it—is to examine the pat tern of support for families with children. In recent years, until this year when I announced an increase in child benefit, we decided that the right priority was to give extra money to the least well-off families with children. Those are families on income support and in receipt of family credit—in other words, low-income families in work. About £400 million of additional resources in real terms has gone to those less well-off groups in recent years. I make no apology for that.

Mr. Lester: Does my right hon. Friend agree that child benefit makes a valuable contribution to all families with children? Does he further agree that those who suggest returning to a tax allowance should look back at the history of this benefit, which was an allowance and was then converted? Does he agree that we should retain the value of child benefit, that it should be indexed and that it should continue to be paid to the mother, or the woman in the family?

Mr. Newton: No doubt there will continue to be a lively debate about precisely what the balance should be—not least in terms of my previous supplementary answer—between different forms of giving support to families. I made it clear in my uprating statement, and I am glad to make it clear again to my hon. Friend today, that child benefit is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support.

Mr. Meacher: Does the Secretary of State recognise that if the Government abolished child benefit—which clearly they are considering—Nye would be the only European Community country with no universal child benefit? Will he confirm that, after four years of Tory freeze, child benefit per child is only half that which is currently paid in France? Will he at least have the grace to acknowledge that, unlike means-tested family credit and child tax allowances, child benefit has the combined advantages of 100 per cent. take-up, of being cheap to administer and of involving no poverty trap? Will he confirm that only child benefit achieves that?

Mr. Newton: I can only think that the hon. Gentleman has been present in the House on at least four or five occasions in the past few months without listening to what I have said. I repeated this afternoon and if the hon.

Gentleman did not hear it 30 seconds ago, I state again that child benefit is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support.

Income Support

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will bring forward proposals for modifications to the income support system to enhance flexibility and support levels.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): We have no proposals to do so at present. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) undertook a full review of the social security system in 1986 and introduced comprehensive reforms which took effect in April 1988. Two of our major aims for income support were to improve flexibility and to enable us to direct resources more accurately than under supplementary benefit. Since then the structure of income support has allowed us to focus extra help on families, disabled people, carers and the elderly. All this has been in addition to the normal annual upratings of benefit levels.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In view of the increased targeting emphasis and the result that it has produced, and as extra cases of hardship may come through Members' surgeries, citizens advice bureaux and other agencies in the coming months if the recession temporarily produces further problems, will my hon. Friend ensure that any referrals from Members of Parliament and others are treated with extra special care to help the most needy and hard-pressed in the community?

Miss Widdecombe: It is an essential part of our policy that help should be targeted where it is most needed. Any representations will be carefully considered. Our offices are always seeking means to improve the efficiency and speed with which they deal with such applications.

Mr. Flynn: Has the Minister observed that part of the flexibility which the Government have introduced in the overall support given to the children of war widows has resulted in a real-value cut in the payment to them of one third? That is from 12·3 per cent. of average earnings in 1979 to a mere 7 per cent. today. Does the hon. Lady realise that those war widows, as well as many other people on invalidity support and pensions, will also be denied the value of the £1 increase in child benefit which will be enjoyed by other people? Is that what the Government call flexibility?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman has misread the position. That is surprising as he had an Adjournment debate on the subject which was answered in detail by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman should realise not only that the reasons for the discrepancies that he has identified are historical but that the difference would be about 21p. He should not exaggerate the case before the House.

Residential Care Homes

Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received concerning the level of income support available to people in residential care homes.

Miss Widdecombe: We have received many representations from individuals and bodies.

Mr. Sims: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for the time and trouble that she devoted to speaking and answering questions at the lobby organised last week by the National Care Homes Association. At the meeting I am sure that she realised the strength of concern among residents and care home owners about the gap between income support and the charges that have to be imposed by home owners. Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the Age Concern critique of the Price Waterhouse survey? Will she study it carefully and consider making a more detailed survey of the true costs of running care homes, so that income support can be fixed at a realistic level?

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend, who should be congratulated on the way in which he chaired the lobby last week, will be aware that we have already made substantial improvements to income support for the elderly in nursing homes, as we have for those in residential care. He will be aware that those in nursing homes received a considerable increase of £45 a week. Of course, we shall continue to keep the matter under review, although he will also be aware that after 1993 the position will change for new residents. I shall study the documents from Age Concern, as I shall consider all representations made to us, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that the Government regard it as extremely important that we have the levels right and that we fix them at a reasonable rate.

Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say to the hon. Lady—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No.

Mr. Flynn: I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment—

Mr. Speaker: That means that others may not ask supplementary questions.

Mr. Flynn: rose—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman says that he wishes to raise the matter on the Adjournment, I am afraid that that is the end of the question. Sir Rhodes Boyson—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. It was not the hon. Gentleman's question, so I withdraw that. I call Mr. Madden.

Mr. Madden: How many elderly people does the Minister think will go to bed tonight in residential homes fearful that they may be evicted because neither they nor their relatives have the money to pay the required fees? Does she really describe the income support limit, which will go up to £160 in April—just £5 a week above the current level—as a substantial increase? Why will not she come clean and be honest with all those people running homes, working in them and living in them that there is just not enough money? When is it going to be increased?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman would do well to study the Price Waterhouse report in some detail. We based our uprating on the findings of that report, which was a comprehensive survey. The answer to the first part of his question about how many old people will go to bed worried tonight is none.

Fraud

Sir Rhodes Boyson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has of the cost-effectiveness of staff deployed on fraud work in his Department.

Mr. Jack: The cost-effectiveness of fraud investigation work is measured in terms of staff costs set against the amount of benefit saved. In the year ended 31 March 1990, the most recent for which figures are available, staff costs were an estimated £44 million. In the same period investigators achieved benefit savings of £309 million. In other words, £7 was saved for every £1 spent.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I thank the Minister for that reply. It shows that the money is well spent because the more money that we spend on genuine unemployed people, the less is spent on the non-genuine. Have the Government any plans to bring back a work test for the so-called able-bodied unemployed, as in 1601 and 1834, so that those who claim benefit and say that they are unemployed can be tested to ensure that that is the case, especially in our big cities?

Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend has an enviable record in this area. I have noted his contribution to policy development, as outlined in the debate on 28 February 1984 in the House. As a result, my right hon. Friend will know that stringent rules are already in operation which require people who seek unemployment benefit to demonstrate that they are actively seeking employment. The Government have already come under some criticism for the way in which that test was to be applied, but it appears to be working because about 50,000 claimants who have already been advised of the requirements of the test have proceeded to look for work and can continue to claim their benefit.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Perhaps the Minister would also like access to the cat-o'-nine-tails, which I am sure would be equally effective.
The Department's reorganisation of benefit offices is resulting in the loss either of civil servants at the top of the scale—whose useful experience was gained at great expense—or of those lower down, who are unable to retain their jobs. What use is that, pray?

Mr. Jack: I thought that we were whipped enough as it was, without a reference to the cat-o'-nine-tails. In terms of the resources employed to detect fraud, which I believe is the point underlying the hon. Lady's question, the Government have doubled the number of investigating officers since taking office, from 1,724 to 3,179.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Sentences (Appeals)

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the number of appeals he has made about the leniency of sentences.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Twenty-five cases referred by me have been heard by the Court of Appeal. In 21 of them, a substantially heavier sentence was


substituted. Additionally, I have referred two cases in Northern Ireland and in each a substantially heavier sentence was substituted.

Mr. Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a success rate of more than 80 per cent., which demonstrates the need for the powers that he exercises. I congratulate him, too, on creating a tariff structure of which judges will take account in future sentencing policies.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's opening words, but the Court of Appeal creates the structure--through the valuable guidelines that it publishes on cases that I have referred under the power that Parliament conferred two years ago.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Attorney-General agree that the peculiarity of our sentencing compared with that of other countries is not its over-leniency but that many more of our offenders spend much longer in prison than is the case in other western European countries? As to the problem of disparity, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman study with renewed interest the possibility of establishing a sentencing council?

The Attorney-General: The latter point is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. One can make a number of international comparisons, but it is important to remember that sentencing is an art, not a science—and a very difficult one at that. It calls for sense and sensitivity, learning and not a little courage. Although the new power is valuable, it is reassuring that in only a tiny proportion of cases—about one in every 1,000—does the Court of Appeal feel it necessary to advise a junior court that its sentence was unduly lenient.

Mr. Holt: My right hon. and learned Friend's statement is much welcomed. Does he intend to take powers to stop the current practice whereby courts are allowed to impose penalty points for driving offences concurrently, when topping up would usually result in a ban? Recently in my constituency, a man with eight penalty points on his licence was given an additional three points, but they were imposed concurrently—and that after he had killed someone in a road accident.

The Attorney-General: I shall not comment on an individual case. Sentencing is a matter for the judiciary. The Executive cannot interfere, but the legislature can. Whether it should do so is initially a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General agree that, although he has been careful with the sentences referred to the Court of Appeal, in the light of the letters that many right hon. and hon. Members receive from the public asking why a certain sentence was not the subject of an appeal, it might be helpful to have more publicity about the guidelines used by his office in determining which cases will or will not go to the Court of Appeal?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. We recently exchanged correspondence about a painful and distressing case in his constituency. The guidelines are published in the law reports. I believe that I am right in saying that each time an appeal results in an extended sentence, the result is

published in the law reports. I must, of course, adhere to the guidelines, because there would be no point in my referring a case that fell fair and square within the ambit. One must also remember that the statute refers not to a lenient sentence but to an unduly lenient sentence.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Hind: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the number of cases prosecuted by the Crown prosecution service in 1990.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): In the 12 months to the end of September 1990, the Crown prosecution service completed 1,729,282 cases, of which 140,326 were in the Crown court.

Mr. Hind: I am grateful for that answer. Is my right hon. and learned Friend now satisfied that the Crown prosecution service has settled into its task? It has attracted a great deal of criticism from various parts of the country, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is now doing a fine job, prosecuting and dealing expeditiously with many cases?

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about the Crown prosecution service. It is settling in well. It conducts a great many cases with skill and confidence which is recognised by courts and the public throughout the country.

Mr. Fraser: Will the Solicitor-General compare the resources given to the Crown prosecution service with those given to the legal aid service and say why he thinks that it is right that the rate of remuneration for those prosecuting criminal cases should go up more quickly than the rate for those defending them?

The Solicitor-General: I am not sure that that is by any means always, if ever, the case—the rates should be broadly in balance. The amount of money spent on legal aid has been going up very fast this year.

The Gulf

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General what legal advice he has sought recently from academic international lawyers on legal issues affecting developments in the Gulf.

The Attorney-General: I give advice on my own responsibility. The question whether I have sought the views of others is normally confidential.

Mr. Dalyell: As a member of the War Cabinet, what advice has the Attorney-General received on the percentage of bombing of military targets in Kuwait, which is significantly less than the pounding of Iraq? What advice has he received about which United Nations resolution justify the bombing for 18 days of Iraq? Has he received any advice on whether certain animal species, such as the dugong, the sea cow and the green turtle, have a right to exist, not to be annihilated by human Front Bench folly?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman knows that any advice that I give and any advice I receive as a Law Officer is, for good reasons, confidential. Throughout this affair, Britain has committed itself to acting strictly in accordance with international law. In that context, the


principles of international law require that account be taken of two factors when planning attacks on military objectives. First, civilian losses, whether of life or property, should be avoided or minimised as far as practicable. Secondly, we should not cause civilian losses that are disproportionate to the military advantage expected from the attack as a whole. The hon. Gentleman will know, because it has been frequently stated by the Prime Minister and others, that British military commanders have been instructed to comply with those principles.
On the wider question with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his remarks, regrettable though environmental damage is, the responsibility for it lies with President Saddam.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we wish that the conflict had never been started, but that, as it has been started, it must be finished? Does he further agree that the United Nations resolution on which the war is fought is one of humanity—finishing the war as soon as possible? If we continue with the attitude shown by some—luckily a minority—in the House, all tyrants will always prosper and justice will never be done.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend recalls accurately that the Security Council's operative resolution, No. 678, calls on member states to take such measures as are necessary to implement resolution 660, which calls for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait of the Iraqi forces, and to restore international peace and security in the area. That is what this country, together with its allies, are about.

City Fraud

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General whether he has any plans to meet the director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss City fraud; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: I expect to meet the director again shortly to discuss matters of departmental interest.

Mr. Skinner: At those meetings with the director, does the Attorney-General raise with him the question of the £600 million fiddle at Harrods? Do they discuss the ways and means of how to resolve the matter, or do they say, "Well, we will give it a nod and a wink and reckon it has not happened", because some of the participants were too close to the Tory Government? If they do not deal with that, what will the Attorney-General do about the recent report on Blue Arrow which suggests that action should be taken against the executive and non-executive directors of that firm? What action will he take—or do the Government want to concentrate on the working-class people who might be caught with a bit of social security fraud at £15 a week? Are those the double standards in which the Attorney-General believes?

The Attorney-General: It may not make much difference to the hon. Gentleman, but when I consult the director I consult her, not him.
As for Blue Arrow, among the cases in which preparatory hearings are already in progress is that of County NatWest, which embraces the other matter. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps give credit to the fact that,

since its inception, the Serious Fraud Office has prosecuted 43 cases and 95 defendants, of whom 60 have been convicted.

Mr. Skinner: Are they all in open prisons? The Kuwaiti royal family—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Attorney-General: We all know that the hon. Gentleman is tortured by self-doubt, but I am afraid that I must continue to intrude on his soliloquy.

Mr. Skinner: They will not understand that outside.

The Attorney-General: "To Beast or not to Beast" is the hon. Gentleman's question; my question is the one that he originally asked, and I am answering it.
Decisions about whether to prosecute are made on the basis of the code for Crown prosecutors, which has been scrutinised by Parliament and which takes no account whatever of the partisan considerations that the hon. Gentleman has at the very heart and core of his being.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Namibia

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what developments have there been in aid to Namibia since independence.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): On Namibia's independence last March, we announced £10 million of aid for commitment over three years. We have agreed with their Government that education should be the first priority. A number of initiatives are already under way. We are also helping with police training, public-sector reform and the resettlement of returnees, and we are exploring the possibilities for assistance in other sectors, including agriculture and health.

Mr. Pike: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does she, however, recognise the importance to Namibia of development of its fishing industry, which provides employment prospects and also increases public revenue? Will she consider giving aid for the development of that industry, and confirm that she recognises the associated problem of Walvis bay and what it means to Namibia?

Mrs. Chalker: I have just returned from Namibia. While I was there, I was able briefly to discuss the whole question of fisheries. The hon. Gentleman may remember that, just before independence, Dr. John Beddington of Imperial college, London undertook a study and made some preliminary recommendations on fisheries management. We want to explore the scope for further support in that regard; we have offered the Namibian Government further assistance, but they have yet to respond.
As for Walvis bay, we voted on Security Council resolution 432, advocating its integration into Namibia. We continue to believe that the issue can best be dealt with by means of low-key bilateral negotiation, but we have offered to help and have put in the right words in the right places.

Mr. Burt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us believe that our development aid has been very well spent in Namibia, helping to fashion the possibility of


success from a near-disaster? Does she feel that there are any lessons to be learnt that will be helpful in the development of the new South Africa, where aid and assistance will also be needed to help the people emerge from another near-disaster into success?

Mrs. Chalker: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He knows that we began English language teaching for Namibians long before independence. In South Africa we have been providing teacher training for English language and other subjects through the Molteno project for about four and a half years. By giving English language and other educational training, we are laying the foundations, but we must build on that through projects such as public sector reform, which we are carrying out in Namibia. We must also ensure that each programme is tailored to needs. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall be looking at the projects in South Africa which now amount to about £10 million of aid to black South Africans.

Cambodia

Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current position in Cambodia.

Mrs. Chalker: We are providing humanitarian assistance to Combodians by supporting the activities of British non-governmental organisations and United Nations agencies inside Cambodia and in the camps along the Thai border. We are ready to consider with other donors how Cambodia's reconstruction and development needs can be met in the context of a comprehensive political settlement.

Mr. Allen: I thank the Minister for that reply. In the light of today's reports about renewed fighting between the Cambodian Government and the Khmer Rouge, and the comments in the current Jane's Defence Review on the strength of the Khmer Rouge, may I ask the Minister once again to state in the clearest possible terms for the public record that this country has never given assistance to train the military of any description fighting against the Phnom Penh Government?

Mrs. Chalker: I do not know how many times I have said this before, but I shall say it again. We have never given and will never give support of any kind to the Khmer Rouge. I much regret it if fighting has again broken out because, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have repeatedly called on all parties to stop fighting and reach a comprehensive settlement. The formal ceasefire and an end to outside arms supplies are integral parts of the draft comprehensive settlement document. The Cambodians have already shown that a ceasefire isolated from a settlement just will not work. Therefore, it has to be ceasefire and settlement under the terms negotiated by the permanent five.

Mr. Lester: Will my right hon. Friend use her considerable talent to try to persuade her colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to enable the Phnom Penh regime to understand the details of the United Nations plan? There are difficulties in the military and in the supervision concept. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend were able to make contact through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with the Phnom Penh

regime so that it could have a much clearer understanding of the value of the United Nations plan and the fact that it is a real hope for Cambodia.

Mrs. Chalker: I shall be very pleased to talk to my noble Friend who takes the political responsibility for that, but, of course, we are both in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I hope that the co-chairman of the Paris conference, who visited Hanoi last weekend and put pressure on the Vietnamese to accept the draft settlement document, will persuade Hun Sen to do likewise. I know that they had a long conference, but so far we have not had reports of its outcome. I shall be in touch with my hon. Friend when I have anything to tell him about that weekend conference.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Minister agree that many of us believe that to be effective there is no point in simply calling on both sides to have a ceasefire, but that we must, in view of the terribly poor condition of Cambodia, reopen direct bilateral aid to Phnom Penh, because failing to do so gives an economic weapon to the Khmer Rouge?

Mrs. Chalker: Unless there is a ceasefire and an end to hostilities, we shall not be able to carry out in practical terms what the hon. Gentleman asks for. As he knows, we already give humanitarian aid. We also give aid through UNICEF, the World Health Organisation and the World Food Programme, but until there is a ceasefire and fighting stops, there is no way in which we can be more active and more helpful to the Cambodian people, however much we might wish to be so.

Mrs. Clwyd: Month after month the Minister comes here and talks about the humanitarian aid that we provide —very little through NGOs. Does not she realise that it is a fleabite compared with the amount of assistance that Cambodia, devastated by war and economic isolation over the past few years, needs? Does not she realise that one in five children dies from waterborne diseases? The water reconstruction project in Phnom Penh has come to a halt because the Soviets have withdrawn their aid. Does not the Minister know about the $49 million in the United Nations Development Programme account that is ready to be spent in Cambodia? Surely it is not beyond the wit even of the present Government and of the Minister to do something about this dreadful situation.

Mrs. Chalker: Sometimes I wonder whether the hon. Lady lives in the real world. I should be happy to see the United Nations money spent—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady will listen for a moment she will get an answer. The Government are fully ready to consider requests from the United Nations agencies, from the NGOs and from Voluntary Service Overseas in respect of 1991. We are prepared to help, but in the absence of a ceasefire—while hostilities continue—it is not practicable to undertake what the hon. Lady asks for.

Aid Programmes

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what weight is being given to sound economic management as a criterion for aid programmes to any country.

Mrs. Chalker: Sound economic management is a very significant factor in assessing whether our aid can be used effectively in any country.

Mr. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the contents of the International Monetary Fund report on the Soviet Union which indicates that, with the failure of perestroika and the failure of the Soviets to introduce proper market mechanisms, giving aid to the Soviet Union is almost like throwing money into the Volga? Does she realise that this report has principles in common with our aid programme elsewhere in the world, including Africa? Is it being studied carefully?

Mrs. Chalker: I believe I am right in saying that Jean-Michel Camdessus, the president of the IMF, has set up a committee to consider the report's conclusions and recommendations. Our assessment is that it is a very valuable report.
In answer to my hon. Friend's second question, I recommend that he looks at the World bank's special programme for Africa proposals for the second phase. These show how, when due allowance is made for the statistics, the countries that follow a strong economic reform programme perform rather better than those which do not bother to do so. It is a lesson for all concerned that sound economic recovery programmes do bring success, even though slowly.

Baltic States

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consideration has been given to changes in technical aid to the Soviet Union in light of events in the Baltic states.

Mrs. Chalker: With our partners, we are watching developments in the Soviet Union closely. We have suspended EC technical assistance, although emergency and food aid may continue where we can guarantee delivery direct to those in need. There is no Governmentto-Government aid to the Soviet Union.

Mrs. Ewing: Although I welcome the Minister's response on the ending of technical aid to the Soviet Union, may I ask her to assure the House that the British Government will be in no way complacent in ensuring that pressure on the Soviet Union is maintained with a view to securing a peaceful resolution to events in the Baltic states? As there have been 20 deaths in the Baltic states in just three weeks, she must agree that there is no room for complacency. Can she assure us that no deal whatever will be done and that a blind eye will not be turned for the purpose of securing continued Soviet Union assistance in the Gulf?

Mrs. Chalker: As I said during previous Overseas Development questions, we deeply deplore the actions of the Soviet troops in Vilnius and Riga and their tragic consequences, which the hon. Lady mentioned. The behaviour of those troops is totally unacceptable and we have made our concern very well known to the Soviet authorities. The hon. Lady may like to know that the Foreign Secretary summoned the Soviet chargé on 21 January to underline our concern, and in every forum in which we have encountered the Soviets we have made those concerns known. However, it may still be necessary for us, where possible, to help people directly through humanitarian aid.

BREL (Redundancies)

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement of 1,200 redundancies in British Rail Engineering Ltd. in Crewe, Derby and York.
The matter is specific, because BREL announced these 1,200 redundancies on Friday morning of last week. It is important because, at the time when practically every part of British Rail, including its freight and passenger services, desperately need investment in new rolling stock, we are dissipating a skilled work force that is capable of competing with anyone in the world.
It is a matter for urgent consideration, because there is no conceivable justification for a firm that, fewer than two years ago, took over the taxpayers' assets at considerable benefit to itself and announced a profit of £22·4 million, now imposing this unacceptable level of unemployment. If the House of Commons does not concern itself with the unemployment of a large number of skilled engineers, it will not be fulfilling its proper task, which is to make sure that, in a difficult time, our manufacturing industry can compete.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement of 1,200 redundancies in British Rail Engineering Ltd. in Crewe, Derby and York.
I have listened with care to what the hon. Lady has said, but she knows that the decision that I have to take is whether to give this matter precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I hope that she will have other opportunities to raise the matter, but it does not meet the criteria of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit her application to the House.

Posters (Belfast)

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help, in view of the outrage that is felt in Northern Ireland, especially by the families of the Ulstermen who are serving in the Gulf conflict, about the threat issued by the governor of the Maze prison, Mr. Bill O'Loughlin, and the executive chairman of the Ulster Bus depot in Belfast that all workers who put up a solidarity poster, as issued in The Sun, will lose their jobs. Have you had a request, Mr. Speaker, from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or any of his Ministers about making a statement on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: I have not had any request for a statement to be made on this matter, but I am certain that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by Ministers on the Front Bench, and will be taken into account.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Another aspect of this matter directly concerns Parliament. You will remember that Parliament passed the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) 1989 which established the Fair Employment Commission. I am sure that Parliament never intended that the commission should abuse its powers by supporting this utterly squalid campaign against Her Majesty's forces in the Gulf. Would it not be appropriate for a Minister to come to the House as soon as possible to make a statement about the anti-British, anti-forces attitude of this creature of the Government?

Mr. Speaker: As I told the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), this is a serious matter and I am sure that what has been said will have been heard by those on the Front Bench. However, I am afraid that it is not a matter for me.

BILL PRESENTED

WAR PENSIONS (DISREGARD)

Mrs. Alice Mahon, supported by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Bernie Grant and Mr. John Battle, presented a Bill to provide that income from war pensions shall be disregarded for the purpose of assessing entitlement to any benefit payable out of the Social Security Fund or the National Insurance Fund: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 February and to be printed. [Bill. 73.]

STATUTUORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.

Ordered,
That the draft Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

CENSUS (CONFIDENTIALITY) BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Census (Confidentiality) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Family Policy

Mr. David Martin: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising the fundamental importance of the wellbeing of the family as the basis for a stable, responsible and free society, believes that Government policies should be concentrated not on supplanting the role of families but in continuing to support and increase their confidence and competence by extending choice in employment, education, health, housing, pensions and personal social services, while pursuing sound economic policies which raise living standards, encourage savings and provide reliable and effective public services.
Anyone winning one of these highly prized opportunities to present a motion of one's very own is sometimes congratulated on having the good fortune to win the ballot, but I do not want congratulations. Like anyone else, I had only to find my way to the No Lobby and manage to sign my name. It is on winning that the real difficulty begins, for it is necessary to choose a subject. Why not choose something simple such as nuclear physics or local government finance, for example? As I thrive on a challenge, I decided to choose to debate issues concerning the family. Hence my motion.
I know that, from the beginning, I shall get into trouble for choosing to debate such a subject. Aspects of family policy intrude into almost every Department of Government. On the Benches in front and around me I see right hon. and hon. Members who are steeped in detailed knowledge of any issue that I might raise. There are riders of hobby horses and authors of books or pamphlets. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is in his place to add what wisdom he can to the debate.
I shall start the trouble by defining what I mean by family. I have selected the third definition in the "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary". That definition of family is:
The group consisting of parents and their children, whether living alone or not; in a wider sense, all those who are nearly connected by blood and affinity.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who will contribute to the debate and who I am pleased to see on the Government Front Bench, wrote something in The House Magazine a week or two ago that put the matter more colloquially. She wrote:
if you ask people whether they have a family, they believe you mean children, when family of course includes parents, grandparents, aunts and cousins.
I agree with my right hon. Friend. We must not consider children alone in this debate.
There is a vital public interest in the success of the family. It is where earliest education takes place, where the individual experiences a sense of security and of purpose, and where responsible attitudes should be based from an early age. If parents, who are the first to reap what they sow in this respect, do not or cannot cope inside the home, why should we expect schoolteachers, police officers or others to do so outside the home? In addition, a country in which strong, lasting family values are considered normal, is much more likely to have citizens who contribute to the community and understand the benefits of freedom and obligation. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary put that in a wider setting when he was a distinguished Home Secretary. He said:

Freedom can flourish in a community only where shared values, common loyalities and mutual obligations provide a framework of order and self-discipline, otherwise liberty can quickly degenerate into narrow self-interest and licence.
Sometimes family influences are not always for the best for every child. The poet Philip Larkin put his line of thought succinctly. As this is a family occasion, I have had to bowdlerise one word of his famous or rather infamous lines. He wrote:
They mess you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you up with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
But they were messed up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.
Despite those lines of some pessimism, for most people the importance of the success of the family is linked inextricably with the success of marriage in providing stability. A commitment to the binding nature of marriage should at the same time mean acceptance of a mutual obligation to care for the children of the marriage. That is if we insist on not taking Philip Larkin's advice in the last lines of the poem from which I quoted.
This is where our divorce laws and arrangements for marriage guidance and conciliation are so significant. I do not want to moralise. Indeed, I recoil from moralising: I believe that that is for bishops, both the official ones and the honorary ones who sit on the Benches in this place. I am not a philosopher either. I agree with Henry Adams definition that philosophy is
unintelligible answers to insoluble problems.
I strongly believe, however, that for the sake of the children of a marriage, it is usually by far the best course to try to keep the marriage together. Apart from purely private considerations, there is a significant public interest in doing so. There is the expense of broken marriages, which is often thrown on to the state, and the desperate disruption and unhappiness that are so often caused to the lives of children, with the variety of anti-social consequences that that frequently has for society.
The Government can specifically help in the crucial area of marriage and divorce law. They have done so already: the Children Act 1989 is very much to their credit, with its emphasis on the child's welfare, its obligation on parents, local authorities, social services and other agencies to help, its fostering of a fair understanding and approach to custody and access wrangles, and its crucial recognition of the role of grandparents.
But there is more to do. It is now possible to divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown after only one year of marriage. The Law Commission's recent report, entitled "The Ground for Divorce", which was debated in the other place last Thursday, proposes that, in effect, no divorce should be granted until at least two years after the marriage, including a one-year enforced wait for possible consideration and reflection, with the priority being to save the marriage—and if that is not feasible, at least to consider and agree essential questions on the upbringing of children, maintenance and property before the marriage may be dissolved.
There is much sense in so changing the law. Of course, at times help must be available through counselling,


reconciliation or conciliation services, which brings me to a hobby horse of mine— Relate, which was formerly the Marriage Guidance Council. It provides excellent services in trying to keep marriages intact. Hon. Members will be well aware of its work.
I know my Portsmouth branch well and, given what it has at its disposal, it is good at what it does. It is no different, I suspect, from any other branch in the country. It has a waiting list of several months, principally because of a lack of trained counsellors. The Government cm help by increasing grant aid, particularly to meet the expense of recruiting and training such counsellors. That makes sense not only in human but in financial terms, as the cost of broken marriages to public expenditure through legal aid and medical and social services, is monumental. Grants should not be increased to such an extent that incentives to voluntary aid and fund raising are stifled. I give credit to the Government for current provision, but more would be welcome and would be most efficiently spent, certainly in Portsmouth.
If a marriage cannot be saved, organisations such as the Hampshire family conciliation service stand by to help in an atmosphere of least bitterness, settling the essential questions of children, maintenance and property—a settlement when it is hoped will endure in co-operation between the parties after the marriage is dissolved. That service, like so many similar ones, is looking in particular to my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to make a strong case for increased Government support to supplement substantial voluntary effort.
I now want to seize the nettle of employment issues, where the cry, "Women and children first," takes on an added meaning. In considering these matters, I want to say something about education and the interaction of taxes and benefits.

Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend mentioned the role of grandparents. Does he agree that they have a role to play, particularly where, for some reason, the parents are inadequate or the marriage is breaking down? Grandparents often have much love and interest for young children. They have a role which the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) has tried to enshrine in legislation, but I appreciate the difficulties involved. Should not grandparents, who may not have much income and who may fall on difficult times in their 70s and 80s, be able to call on the younger members of their family for support, rather than the taxpayer all the time?

Mr. Martin: My hon. Friend makes his points lucidly and eloquently. I wholly agree with what he says and with the sentiments behind it. I am glad that he added those thoughts to the debate.
The interaction of taxes and benefits has a bearing on employment, particularly the employment of women. This is an area where ideas are difficult to put into practice. I have already said that I am not a philosopher. I have so far avoided quoting Burke, which is very difficult in such debates. His modern counterparts who have helped my thinking on these matters in preparing for the debate are David Willetts, the director of studies at the Centre for Policy Studies and, after the next election, my neighbour in Havant; my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), pamphleteer extraordinaire, who has written

some sound sense on the subject; and Ludger Eiling of the Konred Adenauer Foundation. I am grateful to them for their contributions.
As hon. Members understand, married couples without children have the least difficulty in making ends meet. They have the most unhampered choice as to whether one or both should work in paid employment. The real tests begin when the first child arrives. If only one parent is left alone to cope, those tests naturally multiply. In approaching the issue of mothers who are either in paid employment outside the home or are staying at home—I shall not say "not working", because looking after the home and children is certainly work, as hon. Members would agree —the Government's role should be strict neutrality. They should see how people live and then encourage, or at least not inhibit—if one can get politicians not to poke their noses in—the patterns that those people have chosen for themselves.
There should be no endless debate about whether mothers should or should not go out to work. The important factor is choice. When all is said and done—this is a little-known fact—most mothers of young children do not go out to work and most of those who do are part-time. Only when children are 10 or over does full-time work outside the home become most popular. These days, sensible employers recognise that women's work patterns reflect their role as mothers over a number of years—leaving work, coming back, retraining, leaving work and so on. Employers cannot ignore such a valuable source of labour, and the best certainly do not.
For years it has been accepted that families with children, whether or not one or both parents are working outside the home, require extra support. Parents make a variety of child care arrangements which, I am well aware, is a highly controversial matter. This is where the extended family—grandparents and others—plays a particularly valuable part.
In the formation of policy, it is important to recognise that two thirds of children of full-time working mothers and almost 90 per cent. of children of part-time working mothers are cared for by a grandparent, a husband or other relation. As a tried and tested method of financing child support or child care services, child benefit beats child care vouchers or child care tax allowances or a return to child tax allowances.
The only fair and evenhanded help is that which is available to all mothers with young children, regardless of whether those mothers work. In the early years, when a reduction to one wage or no wage provides the biggest strain, I should like an increased child benefit to concentrate on children under five.

Mr. David Alton: I strongly agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Not only should child benefit be increased but the 12 per cent. reduction from which child benefit suffered between 1979 and 1989 should be reinstated. If it is not, the neutrality for which the hon. Gentleman argued is not possible. In other words, taxation would be a punitive measure against marriage and family life.

Mr. Martin: I was speaking about what I should like to see as future policies. I welcome the fact that the recent measures of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security gave more to the eldest child in a family. My suggestion about increasing support for under-fives is


a logical progression along that road and I should like to encourage that move. I want not to go over the past but to look positively to the future to obtain the best possible method.
Nurseries and creches provided by employers at the workplace or elsewhere—people often do not realise that they are supplied elsewhere—are now encouraged through the tax system and not taxed as a perk. That is only one way. Independent nurseries, child minders, specialist day care centres, family clubs and playgroups are other ways, and more are needed.
Further help for mothers who buy such child care, whether or not they go out to work, could also come from a simple change in VAT regulations. If nurseries became zero-rated rather than exempt nursery providers could reclaim VAT on many costs and therefore charge cheaper and more competitive prices. That would not favour a particular form of child care, because at present, playgroups, home helps and child minder services—believe it or not—do not suffer from that particular VAT problem. It would merely remove the bias against nurseries.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I wholeheartedly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. However, I should like to add one comment. Does my hon. Friend agree that, historically, the whole system of education for the under-fives has not been handled well? Are not such affairs handled much better on the continent? Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to move towards full provision of education for the under-fives?

Mr. Martin: My hon. Friend has anticipated precisely my line of thinking. I agree that, for older children, we need to improve opportunities for nursery education. I have stated some of my ideas on how to improve education for children up to the age of five. There are many ideas from the continent, such as those of Ludger Eiling of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. We should investigate what is done abroad and seek better practice here.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that cash-strapped Labour local authorities have pursued such policies, against the odds, for years? They have often been rate-capped because they have insisted on making nursery education provision available. The national statistics, drawn up by those who are interested in nursery education, show that Labour local authorities are at the top of the league in terms of nursery provision in the United Kingdom, although they are pressed by central Government to cut their moneys. Are not Conservative Members inconsistent to argue a purist position on nursery education while voting to cut local authority budgets, thus preventing them from providing the very services for which the hon. Gentleman argues?

Mr. Martin: I shall discuss shortly the contribution that Labour may or may not be able to make. The other day, I visited a school in my area which has excellent nursery provision, some for the morning and some for the afternoon. I shall not go into the details of local government finance, but if Labour authorities have been rate-capped, it is because they have often done much that is not helpful in this respect. If, instead, they spent money

on real provision—as opposed to what is happening in Lambeth at the moment—we should get some sense. There is a distinction between the Government's views and those of the Opposition on this issue.
We need to improve opportunities for nursery education for older children. That is especially vital for lone-parent families. At present the social security system —principally through income support—while providing more financial help than ever before frankly does not encourage a parent who is able and willing to work to do so. For working families, the family credit arrangements have proved successful. The lone parent, however, is most likely to become most dependent on the state. Good nursery education means that that parent can exercise more real choice as to whether to earn a living. The result is that both parent and child, as well as the state, are better off, and family values are more likely to flourish in a happier home.

Mr. Simon Burns: Will my hon. Friend accept that there must be some change in nursery education practice if it is to become an alternative form of child care for the under-fives which helps mothers to go back to work? Many local authorities provide nursery education only in morning or afternoon sessions for different children at each session. If there is full-day provision, that will start at about 9 am and finish at 3 pm or 3.30 pm. That is no good for a lone parent who wants to work full-time instead of part-time.

Mr. Martin: I recognise the shortcomings in the provision of nursery education, and that is why I have raised the matter today. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Secretary of State for Education and Science, she used to promote those ideas. They should be re-established in future Conservative party policy. The Government would then be able to adopt my ideas.
Housing is fundamental for families, because housing, in the sense of a satisfactory roof over a family's head, is important to a family's well-being. Providing adequate and affordable housing for all remains a seemingly intractable problem despite the intentions, actions and numerous Government initatives over several decades, including the expenditure of thousands and millions of pounds.
It would be ludicrous for the Opposition to criticise us for indifferernce or for not trying with respect to housing matters. None of us wants inadequately housed people trooping into our surgeries week after week. Discounting natural feelings of humanity, only a fool would wish hardship on his constituents—and Ministers have constituencies as well.
Since the war, the landmark features have been increasing home ownership, the continued steep decline of private rented homes, the dominance of local authority housing for rent and, in recent years, the rise of housing associations. I must make it clear at the outset that the state has a role in housing. Of course social housing is necessary. However, I have a persistent feeling that many of the problems have been made worse, not better, by the paraphernalia of both local and central Government which, have over the years, continually stifled or ignored the best methods of supply. I have never been able to understand why it should be acceptable that the supply of food and clothing and a host of other human needs and


wants can be left to free enterprise, although, of course, reasonably regulated by general rules of contract, consumer protection arid safety, while the problem meeting the housing needs of those who cannot or do not wish to buy cannot be resolved in that way.
Housing needs have been firmly hedged about with draconian rent legislation and controls which have acted as a powerful disincentive to supply, while fiscal initiatives such as mortgage interest relief have distorted ownership and the capital cost of homes. I will be controversial and state that, in the next Budget, the higher rates of mortgage interest relief should go and we should see the beginning of the end of that relief. I am pleased that it has been withering on the vine at £30,000. However, we will have to bite the bullet in future and get rid of it altogether to allow that money to lower taxation bills all round and do some of the things that we should do in the sphere of housing.

Mr. Alton: While I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, does he accept that there are 850,000 young people in bedsit accommodation and 30,000 homeless in the country at the moment? How would the housing approach that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined help those people?

Mr. Martin: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the existing housing position. I am looking to a better approach in future. The market has not met the needs of the people to whom the hon. Member for Liverpool Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) refers. They are fed and clothed, but they are not housed or sheltered. Why do we not use the same market methods for those people as we use in respect of food and clothing?
With regard to rental accommodation, there is an ever-increasing reliance on local authorities, and more recently on housing association provision. That will never satisfactorily meet the demand. The result of such reliance, which we have seen over many years and which is clear from the number of people in bedsits, is rationing and queues. By embracing such half-measures in rented housing, we are like the hopeful wooers of Penelope, who made love to the waiting women because they could not reach the main objective.
In this country, we must often queue to get out of a supermarket rather than to get into it. Clothing is supplied in such abundance and with such cut-throat competitiveness that it spills out on to the streets alongside food market stalls in every part of the land, and it is available to the poorest at the best possible price.
We cannot look for solutions from Opposition Members. They created many of the problems because of a lack of confidence in ever re-creating the market. The Labour party's latest document, entitled "Looking to the Future", in particular, a section entitled "Good homes for all", is a hotch-potch of Conservative policies that they can no longer avoid adopting, such as the right to buy. It is a summary of their old and failed methods of spending more public money, particularly through letting council spending rip and killing off what remains of the private sector.

Miss Joan Lestor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree or disagree that the sale of council houses that has been forced on local authorities, plus the denial of the right of those authorities to build houses, have contributed to the large number of youngsters in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and the large number of homeless

families? Many people cannot afford to take out a mortgage, particularly at present interest rates, yet the local authority, because it has been forced to sell many of its council houses, has nothing to offer them.

Mr. Martin: The hon. Lady should read her own party document "Looking to the Future", where she will see that the right to buy is supported.
I should like to apply precisely the same solutions that have sorted out other vital aspects for ordinary people, both rich and poor. We must face up to that if we are to sort out the problems. Of course I welcome the energy of my hon. Friend—soon to be right hon, I hope—the Minister for Housing and Planning. No one understands or sympathises more than he, but, until we apply to the provision of homes the solutions that supply other staple human needs so efficiently, we shall not comprehensively tackle homelessness. We shall see people, families in particular, in bedsits for ever, without the proper accommodation that we should provide.
Rent legislation should not apply to future lettings—forget past lettings. To many, that sounds as politically impossible as the privatisation of public utilities or effective legislation to tackle abuses of union power. The latter, incidentally, has emancipated many families not only from being caught up in the turmoil and bitterness of frequent strikes but from the lights suddenly going out, the heating going off, the trains suddenly stopping, the dead lying unburied, and the hospitals not accepting those who are ill. All those nightmares culminated in the infamous Labour winter of despair of 1978–79, which led to many years of Conservative Government.
I note the excellent work that is done by our housing associations to help single people as well as families. People in Portsmouth are no exception. The concept of a mix of public and private money and expertise is sound and is standing the test of time. I welcome the recent initiative by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning in urging upon housing associations an enabling role to bring privately owned property, estimated at a staggering 600,000 empty properties—that shows the lack of confidence that has been built up over many years of hammering the supply of rented properties—into the rented market by offering managed short-term leasing for the owner with guaranteed vacant possession at the end of the lease.
That is the way in which local authorities must act. I have been pressing it on my own local authority and other local authorities for as long as I can remember. To create confidence, we must find the homes, tell the owners that they may have their homes back at the end of a particular period, and they will let to people on the housing list in the meantime. That will make houses available, because people will have confidence that they will get their homes back.
We owe it to our constituents and to families all over the country to get to grips with remaining housing problems. The more boldly we act in this sphere—it is the agenda for the 1990s—the greater will be their reward.
The theme that runs through all the matters that I have raised is the principle that Government policy must complement, not replace, family and individual responsibility. It must encourage, not displace, the host of voluntary and charitable organisations to which so many citizens contribute. Of course, without the right economic policies, all the compassion in the world cannot be


translated into sufficient effective help. The good Samaritan had to meet the innkeeper's bill, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) said in his inimitable style not long ago.
All the objectives that I have set out in my motion will be most effectively tackled by policies that encourage the creation of wealth in a strong, market-based economy, rather than the collectivist obsessions of past Labour Governments or any future one. We know from experience that such Governments, however well intentioned—I give every credit to the intentions of Labour Governments—contract the habit usually after one or two years of living beyond their means, and then beyond ours.
According to its latest document "Looking to the Future", the new model Labour party's policies, with their massive spending commitments, differ only in degree from the policies that led to the party's defeat in the 1987 general election, let alone those in the fiasco of that longest suicide note in history, as it was described by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), upon which the Labour party fought the 1983 general election. When I consider those policies and the policies in the new document, I wonder how many Opposition Members are truly reconstructed in the party's apparently new red rose image and how many, desperate for another Labour Government, are keeping quiet and swallowing any revisionism necessary.
When I was reading—I was determined to do so, even if it killed me—"Looking to the Future", to which I have referred many times, I considered what its authors were up to. I was helped by recollection of an old recipe from a Saxon medicine book:
If sheep be ailing, take a little new ale and pour it into the mouth of each sheep, and manage to make them swallow it, quickish; that will prove of benefit to them.
I thought that that was exactly what the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Cabinet were probably up to with their Back Benchers.
But the problem is that the document did not say how long the medicine's beneficial effects would last. It is certainly difficult to contemplate the electorate trusting the future to a party which has opposed most measures of the past decade. Those measures sought to strengthen family independence rather than state provision, provide choice rather than uniformity, overhaul benefits, establish the right to buy, reform education and the health service and build savings, rather than attack them. Under Labour, power would once again be taken from the home and the parents and would be given to the state, including to a patronising and bureaucratic Ministry for Women.
The Conservative party recognises what is required and has the necessary courage to achieve it. In my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister we have a winner. Opposition Members know it, and we know it. He has a Government around him of Ministers who are also winners. We must, and I am sure we will, continue to develop policies best designed to nurture and help families along the lines of my motion.

Mr. David Alton: Having told us that he did not intend to be a surrogate bishop this afternoon, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) decided to give us the reinterpretation that we

have heard before of one of the most famous gospel stories. He told us that the real moral of the story of the good Samaritan was that we had to have some money in our pockets in the first place. Of course, the true moral of the story is that one must show unconditional love, care and respect for the person who has fallen on the other side of the road and is vulnerable, weak and in need of help. Herein lies the chasm which divides some Members.
We all welcome this debate on families. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South placed great emphasis on choice. For me that is a modern heresy. The idea that it is one's right to do whatever one wants at anyone else's expense is expressed again and again. We hear little about responsibility. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to provide more accommodation for people who wish to exercise the right to buy or, indeed, to allow the right to buy in the private sector, where many properties have lain empty for many years on end.
When I was chairman of the housing committee in Liverpool in 1978, we introduced policies to give people the chance to buy empty properties in the public sector and I was generally in favour of that proposal in the Government's legislation, but that alone is not enough. For the past decade I have been a trustee of the charity Crisis, which is the largest charity dealing with homelessness in this country. It was previously known as Crisis at Christmas. During that decade all hon. Members have been shamed as the numbers of homeless people have increased inexorably—we have all seen the people in cardboard city or the pictures of the homeless on our television sets. Anyone who walks around any major metropolis will see homeless people, many of them young, sleeping rough on the streets at night. That is where the parable of the good Samaritan is applicable. Surely it is not merely about the money to buy one's own home. In addition—it is not mutally exclusive—we need a willingness to reach out to the person whom no one else will care for or speak for.
The debate is timely because each party, in its own way, has been building a family policy and honing the issues before a general election. Although the received political wisdom is that elections are won or lost on economic issues, increasingly—the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South was right about this—public apprehension about the disintegration of social cohesion in Britain has forced each party to set out its stall on family policy.
Curiously, in contrast with much of the emphasis placed by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, all the parties seem to come to the same conclusion—that family life will somehow be strengthened by making divorce even easier. The motion states that the family should be
the basis for a stable, responsible … society".
That is not possible if marriage is no longer to be regarded as a lifelong commitment. The statistics show that marriage is increasingly regarded as temporary and that children become the casualties. Marriage breakdown is 600 per cent. higher than it was in 1961 and involves more than 150,000 couples each year. One in three marriages now ends in divorce and we are fast approaching the American norm where 50 per cent. of all marriages break up. In this country, 3 million people will experience a broken marriage during this decade and 150,000 children under 16 are caught up in divorce every year. One in five British children can expect to experience their parents' divorce before they reach the age of 16.
In its document, "Family Change and Future Policy" the Family Policies Study Centre predicts that, by the year 2000, only one out of every two children will grow up in what it describes as a conventional family. The number of single parents abandoned and left to shoulder all the responsibility for rearing a child has risen inexorably, with one in 10 children in single parent families in 1979, compared with one in four now.
Not everyone decides to marry or to live in a family, but at some time in most people's lives the family provides love, companionship and security. When family life breaks down the community should do all in its power to protect and care for the casualties. I am well aware, as is probably every other hon. Member, of the bitter sequels to family breakdown—the bitterness and recriminations which have far-reaching and catastrophic effects on estranged partners and children alike. Rarely does a week go by without constituents consulting me about maintenance payments which have not been honoured, access arrangements which have broken down and legal battles which sometimes go on for years.
A few weeks ago I met a woman who told me how her husband had walked out on her when she was four months pregnant. He has never bothered to show the slightest interest in his six-months-old daughter, although he wants access to his 12-year-old son, who does not want to see his father. She contested his attempt to divorce, but was told by a court official in the Liverpool Crown court that her attempts to fight for her marriage represented attitudes from "the dark ages". Subsequently, she was rebuked by a judge who told her that her feelings did not "enter into it".
I took up that case with the Lord Chancellor's Office and was told it was a matter entirely for the local courts. Surely that is an example of how far the pendulum has swung away from the safeguarding of marriage and the family as our most basic community.
Many argue that families are irrelevant in modern society and that marriage should not be regarded as a permanent institution. A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research—the Labour party's source of new ideas —argues that two years is too long for couples to wait for a fault-free divorce. The institute also argues for more publicly funded child care rather than tax relief, to help parents who prefer to stay at home. The same view is held by many Conservative Members and within my own party. Instead of making it earlier to divorce, policy should concentrate on strengthening family life and on making it easier for families to stay together.

Ms. Jo Richardson: Although there are no statistics, a large number of women are trapped in their homes with violent partners and cannot leave because they have nowhere else to go. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on women who are forced to live in a violent situation of that kind?

Mr. Alton: I will comment later on violence—and on pornography, which I believe helps to fuel it. I accept that the cases that the hon. Lady mentions are among the most painful of all. They should not be considered from a judgmental point of view. Instead, we must do all that we can to help the single parent to cease being an isolated element in society and to be a fully integrated part of the community, enjoying all the support that we can give. It is not a question of simply apportioning blame when acknowledging that families sometimes break up.
Even in cases where families want to stay together, often courts and court officials tend to shift the emphasis in the direction of favouring divorce which accounts for the massive increase in marriage breakdowns. People too often view the institution of marriage as a temporary commitment into which they can enter on a trial and error basis.
The Government can help the pendulum to swing back in the other direction in a number of ways. I should like every Government Department to produce an assessment of the effects of its policies on family life. If such an indicator and impact statement were built into every Government policy, that would be one way of entrenching the family. Also, taxation should not penalise marriage but ought to recognise the work of the spouse who undertakes the rearing of the children. Tax legislation ought to take into account the real costs of family life—particularly of caring for children. The state should encourage and enable family life, but—and in this I agree with the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South—it should never attempt to substitute for it.
In the case of the elderly, for example, Government policy could take account of changing demographic patterns. The hon. Gentleman mentioned grandparents. One in four of the population of the city that I represent are over retirement age. The fastest-growing group are the over-80s. Families ought to be given improvement grants for the purpose of providing granny flats, so that aged relatives can be accommodated in the family home, if they wish.
In many areas—including my own—planners have been the culprits in destroying the community and family life. Aged people are left in isolated tenements while their former home and the community are ripped apart, with their former residents being shanghaied to places miles away, often to be left in the most dehumanising conditions. Young families are often separated from their grandparents who, in former times, might have been able to give support and help.
The child should, from the moment of its conception, be at the centre of a family-based policy. Its life and its integrity must be protected. Once a child is born, it should, wherever possible, be provided for by both parents. When a parent walks out on his or her child, there should be an automatic attachment of earnings, so that the child can be properly cared for and supported. Children deserve a world that can offer them the best chance for development. Their good is the responsibility of parents and of the wider community.
A glimpse of the statistics shows how much we are failing our country's children. Last year, 184,000 unborn children had their lives ended in the womb and only four out of five pregnancies now go full term. Child abuse continues after birth. Barely a day passes without a new report about attacks on children. Child protection registers were established in 1974, but it was not until 1989 that the information they contained was first published. It revealed that 40,700 children were registered and that 41 per cent. were the cause of grave concern, as being at significant risk of abuse. Also, 4·8 per cent. of those children had been subjected to emotional ill-treatment or rejection; 14 per cent. had been sexually abused, 23 per cent. physically injured, and 12 per cent. persistently neglected, while 3 per cent. fell into a mixture of those categories. Such violence often stems from the spurious libertarian argument about choice that says, "It is my right


to do whatever I want—even to take another person's life —because it is my right to choose." That is a form of modern heresy.
The free distribution of pornography is also defended on the grounds of choice. Pornography degrades families and homes throughout a country where it is so easily accessible. No hon. Member could be unaware of the effects and linkage that exist between the free availability of pornography, and violence against women and children. Despite the recent reports submitted to the Home Office claiming that there is no link, I am convinced that such links exist.
Our lack of concern for the young and the environment in which they are reared is reflected in many ways, for example in the number of runaways. The Children's Society estimates that last year 98,000 children ran away from their homes, but we do not even keep a national computerised register. I hope that the Minister will touch on that issue when she replies. The society estimates that 150,000 young people aged 16 to 19 are homeless each year —often lured away into a life of drugs and prostitution on the streets of London. It is estimated that 100,000 young people take drugs. In addition, alcohol abuse and gambling by young people in amusement arcades deeply corrode family life.
Poverty is another corrosive influence and I was sorry that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South did not say more about the issue. In 1989, the Child Poverty Action Group highlighted 20 examples of the underside of life in Britain. More than 15 million people in the mid-1980s were defined as living in poverty or on its margins, with more than 2 million children living in families with poverty. While tax allowances have increased, the value of child benefits has fallen since 1979. The value of tax allowance has gone up by 22 per cent. for married men and 19 per cent. for single people, but the value of child benefit has gone down by 12 per cent.
Babies with fathers in unskilled jobs run twice the risk of still birth and death under one year old of that faced by babies of professional fathers. Although two families in every three own their own home, homelessness is on the increase and has doubled in the past decade, with 30,000 homeless families sleeping in hostels. In 1989, a total of 70,480 households were in mortgage arrears for six months or more. If poverty, drugs, pornography, homelessness, abortion and divorce are corrosive of family life, so too is consumerism.
Last week in answer to questions that I tabled in the House, the Economic Secretary confirmed that, this year, 3 per cent. of all households—560,000—have serious debts. At the end of the third quarter of 1990, consumer debt stood at £49·6 billion. When broken down into categories, consumer debt is divided up as follows: bank credit cards, which have multiplied massively in the past decade, account for £7·6 billion; retail accounts amount to £2·3 billion; bank loans on personal accounts account for £17 billion; finance houses and other specialist credit granters, which are often loan sharks, account for £20 billion. That places massive pressure on families and we should not underestimate the effect on them. Where is our nation of savers? We have become a nation that is in pawn and in debt, with many families being hit by debts that they cannot meet. Some 560,000 households are in serious debt.

Last year, 23,000 households had their gas supplies cut off and 73,000 households had their electricity supplies cut off, 13,780 homes were repossessed and there were 70,000 households in mortgage arrears of six months or more.
A genuine family policy would have the child and related considerations at the heart of its approach. It must be balanced when addressing all forms of pressure, economic and social.
The family can be a school of more abundant humanity. It can be the community's basic building block. It is uniquely suited to teach and to transmit cultural, ethical, social, spiritual and religious values. The House should therefore do everything possible to protect it and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South for giving us the chance to debate such a crucially important question.

Mrs. Marion Roe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on winning the ballot. This subject touches many of us, and I agree with much of what he said.
The family is perhaps the most enduring institution known to mankind. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) observed, it is a basic building block for society itself. Without the family, society would be impossibly atomised, and relationships transient and unsatisfactory.
Like almost all institutions, the family has undergone rapid change over the past 25 years. The statistics for illegitimacy, divorce, cohabitation and abortion certainly bear witness to the pace of that change. It is almost conventional wisdom nowadays to speak of the family as if it were an anachronism: it seems to be fashionable to talk of a tidal wave of divorce and cohabitation sweeping away what left-wing intellectuals derisively call the traditional family.
Media pundits often claim that the family is really an institution of the past, and that the 21st century will see its demise. I believe, however, that the resilience of the family structure is probably greatly underestimated. During the second world war, for instance, many families were broken up as service men and women were lost in battle and civilians were killed, but the family remained as strong as ever in the 1950s. Ask school children whether they want to marry and have children, and the overwhelming majority will say yes. Most people spend most of their lives in a household headed by a married couple, most people believe adultery to be very wrong, and the great majority believe that children are best reared by both their natural parents.
It is not so much that traditional values have collapsed, for they patently have not. Most people continue to aspire to a basically traditional lifestyle involving marriage and the raising of children within that union. The problem is that we are increasingly finding it hard to live up to that ideal—in large part because we have far higher expectations of the degree of happiness that marriage will secure, and, conversely, because we are far less tolerant of unhappiness and disappointment.
What is indisputably clear is that marriage remains overwhelmingly popular, because individuals find that it works. For all the well-chronicled problems and


unhappiness that can exist within human relationships, we would do well to remember that most people find the greatest happiness and fulfilment within marriage.
I believe that there is a great deal of agreement across the political spectrum about the importance of the family; yet there is no consensus about how policy-makers should try to support the family. An area of particular disagreement is the role of the mother. One of the most worrying developments that I have witnessed in the past decade or so is the devaluation of the status of women who choose to stay at home to bring up their children. Increasingly, it seems that an individual's identity is determined by his or her job, rather than by the role that he or she plays in society.
The housewife's role, rather than being scorned as unfulfilled or untested, should be recognised for the important position that it is. What more valuable job could one do than to mould a future generation? I spent 15 years as an unpaid housewife and mother raising three children before, in middle age, taking up a new career in politics. I become irritated when I hear politicians and business men telling women why, for a thousand and one reasons, from demography to self-fulfilment, they should go out to work.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I am closely following the hon. Lady's argument and I understand her points. Does she agree that over the last decade many women in the United Kingdom have been forced to work because of changing family and financial circumstances? They usually have to take low-paid unskilled work, so it is not a matter of career prospects. They would much rather work in a fulfilled atmosphere at home, but necessity drives them to the market place where they have to find work in order to make ends meet. We need to enhance the role of women in society. Necessity should not interfere in the family by forcing women to work.

Mrs. Roe: Not all women return to work because of financial necessity. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill drew our attention to the high divorce rate. Many women feel that they have to return to work early because they fear that in middle age they may well find themselves divorced and with no career structure to which to return. Many young women are returning to the workplace in order to create a base for themselves in the unhappy event of divorce. I assure the House that the woman who stays at home looking after her family works just as hard running her home as she would running a business outside.
It is not the Government's role to encourage or discourage women from taking paid employment. Today married women certainly have far greater freedom of choice than ever before about whether to have a career outside the home. Opportunities through education, which their mothers or grandmothers never had, are now available to them. The Government should not campaign to get mothers into the workplace. Mothers should decide for themselves about whether to do that.
I would not wish to see British women subjected to the social and cultural tyranny which, for example, exists in Sweden where women who choose to stay at home to bring up children are derided as inadequate failures. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South has said, choice is the key factor. Whether and how much a mother works outside the home is an intensely personal decision for wives and, of course, for their husbands.
Increasingly, women are deciding to work outside the home. In 1931, only 10 per cent. of married women were employed, while in 1987 the figure had risen to 60 per cent. It should be noted that most of that increase was due to the increase in part-time work. I suspect that it is despite the direction of Government or zealous feminists that women are managing to combine work with having a family.
By 1987, more than half of married couples with children consisted of two working partners. As the age of the youngest child rises, the number of mothers who choose to re-enter the work force rises as well. Among families in which the youngest child is under two years of age, 70 per cent. of mothers do not work outside the home. Among families in which the youngest child is over 10 years, the figure falls to 26 per cent.
We have begun to see a substantial rise in job sharing, part-time work, at-home work and flexitime, as a result of which working mothers can choose the hours that they work. Certainly, demographic and social changes have made it easier for women to enter the work force. As fewer and fewer teenagers are available, more and more companies will seek out mothers to fill vital positions. Firms that want to recruit and train mothers will increasingly have to offer attractive child care facilities and opportunities for part-time work. I see no reason why women should not be able to combine work and family.
I have no time for grandiose state-sponsored schemes to get women back to work—schemes operating through taxation or through the benefits system. Such schemes would only redistribute income from the poor to the affluent. By and large, two-earner households are wealthier than single-earner households where the mother stays at home to look after the children. What good could possibly be done by a regressive redistribution of income from the needy to the affluent? We must be careful to ensure that Government intervention does not distort. No Government should try to deny mothers the option to stay at home, yet that would be the effect of offering tax hand-outs or benefits to people who put their children into nurseries or creches. Encouraging one form of behaviour discourages or penalises another.
Today, couples have much higher expectations of marriage. One of the prime factors motivating women to work is the extra income, as well as the self-esteem, that it can bring. People want more for themselves and more for their children: a stable home, a car and holidays. Surely there is nothing wrong in looking for a better quality of life. That, quite simply, is a natural human impulse. Between 1979 and 1985, real household income rose by 8.8 per cent. overall. All family groups saw increases in real income, and couples with children saw their real income rise by 9 per cent.
But with higher expectations come also greater opportunities to fail. As the hon. Member for Mossley Hill has outlined, divorce is now much more prevalent. In 1951 2·6 marriages in 1,000 ended in divorce; by 1987, the rate had risen to 12·7 per 1,000. However, while the divorce rate doubled during the 1970s, it appears that it remained fairly level throughout the 1980s.
Over the last few decades we have seen many changes in the structure of the family. Some trends, such as the rise in illegitimacy, are very worrying, while others, such as the rise in living standards that most families have enjoyed, are very encouraging. What is clear is that the family will continue to endure and adapt. I suggest that, at least in part, the chance of it doing so successfully will depend on


the Government ensuring that the woman who chooses to stay at home is not disadvantaged or pressurised in any way. As a housewife, she should not be made to feel that she is at the bottom of the career ladder. She should be provided with opportunities to retrain or to learn new skills if or when she wishes to resume paid employment as her children grow older.

Miss Joan Lestor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on having chosen this subject for debate. I think that I am right in saying that the previous time we debated anything connected with children and the family was the occasion on which I chose the subject for a motion. My only reason for mentioning that—and it may turn out to be the only point of agreement between the hon. Gentleman and myself—is that only when individual Members take the initiative does the House take seriously, or bother to discuss, the subject. Yet a large proportion of the population is involved, and whatever action is taken will determine to a very large extent the sort of adults that children will become.
The hon. Gentleman, despite the best will in the world, is rather ill-informed about what is actually happening to children and to family life in this country. It is very easy to say, as he said, that people ought to look forward rather than backward, that these are policies for the future. Some of the problems facing many children today have been mentioned, and I shall talk about others later. Those problems have arisen because of the policies that the Government have enacted during the past 11 years.
I asked a question about housing, and the hon. Gentleman replied that the Labour party believes in the right to buy. That is not the point that I was making. We have never said that people should not have the right to buy; what we have said—this is the point that I was making—is that if local authorities, irrespective of the housing situation in their areas, are told that they must allow people to buy their council houses and, at the same time, are deprived of the ability to replace those houses, a housing problem will arise. Obviously, there will always be people who cannot afford to buy houses. Why are so many local authorities, such as the one in my area, under enormous pressure to rehouse families? Why do we not have accommodation for them? The reason is that the best houses have been sold, and Government policy dictates that we cannot replace those that have been lost. That is why we are in this vicious circle. It is also why the number of children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and the number of children who have run away have increased, and why a host of other calamities have arisen. Thus there is a direct connection with Government policy.
In that regard, I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). Indeed, his remarks made me think that he had probably read some of the policy documents that I, in my capacity as Labour party spokesperson on children, have written. I agree entirely that, before introducing legislation, any Government ought to look at the effects it will have on children. That is very rarely done. Indeed, in this respect, the last Labour Government were guilty. Had such effects been taken into account, we should not have built high-rise flats in the

1950s. We should not have expected kids to thrive and flourish in such homes, and we should not have expected women not to be bored and miserable and to become dependent on Valium because there was no escape for them.
No, we do not relate our policies to the needs of children. I could talk about this in the context of transport and a host of other things, but I do not have time to do so. I repeat that when we are passing legislation it is important that we consider its effects on children—its effects now, in 10 years' time and in 20 years' time.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, by way of giving evidence that the Conservative Government have done a great deal for children, highlighted the Children Act 1989. I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered that Act. The hon. Gentleman—indeed, the whole House—will know that one of the reasons for our having achieved legislation in the shape of the Children Act arose from the Cleveland report's appalling disclosures of child abuse, which came as a shock to many hon. Members. Indeed, there are very few people who were not appalled by those disclosures. The Government were right to wait for the publication of that report before introducing legislation. In that way they were able to provide greater protection for children. I was happy to support the legislation.
However, there is no money to implement the provisions of the Act. We have heard about the large number of children on at-risk registers who are not attached to any social worker. In the light of what we know about child abuse in this country, that is absolutely disgraceful. Indeed, it is unbelievable and inexcusable. The purpose of the Children Act was to protect children, yet in London and all other large cities there are increasing numbers of children on at-risk registers. That is not because people are treating their children worse; it is because we are beginning to find out how badly people have always treated their children. Of course, it is a minority who abuse children, but people are disclosing abuse, children are coming forward and social workers are trained to recognise the signs. This is all useful and desirable, but we need the money to implement the legislation.
The local authority in my area has said that employing the extra staff needed to do that job would cost £400,000 or £500,000 a year. That local authority, like all others, has to consider its poll tax bill. It is ridulous that, in order to ensure that we are not poll tax capped, we have to cut services that are needed to avoid damage to children and to the fabric of society. I urge Conservative Members in particular, who put themselves forward as members of the party of the family, to look at what the Government have done to families. They should not say, "I am not concerned about the past, let us look to the future", because we are picking up the pieces of the past for the minority—sadly an increasing one—of our children who face appalling problems.
The Government frequently hide their inactivity behind a mask of ignorance. The figures about the number of children who go missing have rightly been read out. There are about 98,000 on the books of the Children's Society, but the Government say that they do not collect those figures nationally. I have asked about the number of children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but the Government do not have figures on that. I have been referred to some other agency. I have asked about the


number of children who play truant and about the number who work illegally—some for pocket money, but some because their parents are unemployed and they have to be a contributory factor in breadwinning for the family—and the Government do not have the figures.
When the Government enact their policy, they should know about all these problems and about why they exist. No party can claim to be the party of the family when it knows so little about children and family life. We know that 2 million or more children are living in poverty and of the increase in the number of reported cases of child abuse and of violence within families. I do not know whether the incidence of such crimes has gone up, but I know that there are many more reported cases. We should be devising policies and making it easier for women and children who experience violence to be offered the means of escape.
This is where I part company with those who hold up their hands in horror over the divorce rate. One has to take into account why people get divorced. People do not opt for divorce lightly, but many have taken advantage of easier divorce laws to get out of a situation that they can stand no longer. They know that they can escape from such situations. One should not say that divorce is wrong, or should be discouraged, or that people should stay together for the sake of the children. Ask the adults whose parents stayed together in an atmosphere of violence and misery for the sake of the children that they then were, and see what they say.

Mr. Burns: Does the hon. Lady accept that, in many cases, it is more harmful to the children if parents stay together rather than seeking divorce? Divorce is not an easy option.

Miss Lestor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Our society lacks the proper structure to deal with divorces, with children of divorces once separation has taken place, and with the changing pattern of family life in which both parents remarry and have children in the new relationships. Few organisations help children and other families to relate to that and to organise their lives. I do not believe that the family has collapsed or is disappearing. It has fundamentally changed and will continue to change. We have to devise structures and ways to help people, particularly children, to cope with those changes, and to take away the guilt associated with the break-up of marriage.
Within our definition of families, we should have more than the narrow concept of mother and father and Janet and John in a two or three-bedroomed house with a dog. A family is what the children perceive it to be. It can be a one-parent family with all the love and care of a two-parent family. It can be a grandmother who cares for the children because things have gone wrong. We do children who are not in the accepted pattern of family life but are in offshoots of it a disservice to present to them the ideal of the family to which many hon. Members feel we should aspire. Many children never can and never will have such a family life, but they should not be deprived of family support or of what is available to families.

Mr. Alton: I agree with some of what the hon. Lady is saying and I do not elevate the idea of the nuclear family to an ideal because things can go badly wrong. However, does she accept that, all other things being equal, the best interests of the child are served where there can be two

parents in a stable relationship that does not change? When a child loses one or other of its parents, for whatever reason, it may suffer enormous emotional trauma.

Miss Lestor: The hon. Gentleman and I agree on many points. He is saying that if a family is loving, that is the best thing for the child. That is true, if people are prepared to work at it and if their irritations, antagonisms and personalities are such that they can work at it. However, that is not the case for a growing minority of our children. My plea is only that we take these people with us when we present our ideas about what is desirable and preferable in family life.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) said that women who stay at home to look after their children are made to feel guilty. I do not agree with that. It is up to people to make a choice. The trouble is that many women do not have that choice. Many are forced to go out to work, for a wide variety of reasons. One of the worst suggestions that the Government made, which seems to have got lost somewhere, is that if a woman refuses to name the father of her child, for whatever reason, she should be penalised by the loss of 20 per cent. of her income support. There may be good reasons why a woman makes such a refusal, but, even if the Government feel that they must take punitive measures, why must they take it out on the kids? That is what they are doing. They are saying, "Right, we are not giving you much anyway, but if you won't tell us who the scoundrel who fathered your child is, we shall take 20 per cent. from your income support and push you deeper into poverty."
Women's rights are tied up with their right to work, or not to work, as they choose. It is up to people to decide how they run their lives. The terrible dilemma for many one-parent families is that the cost of child care is so great that women in such a situation would have to earn between £50 and £70 a week more than most women to pay for the child care that enables them to work. Furthermore, by working they lose many of the benefits that they would otherwise have. If we believe in freedom for people to please themselves, and for women in such a situation to please themselves, the Government should look closely at child care arrangements, which represent one of the biggest barriers to work for many single women. If they want to stay at home looking after their children, it should be made easier for them to do so. Sometimes, social security offices do not make it easy for mothers to stay at home to look after their children when that is what they would like to do.
As the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South said, child care is a complex issue. Nursery education has always been free—the problem is that there has never been much of it. If one is lucky enough to live in the area of a local authority that offers nursery' ethication—most likely Labour—one can send one's child there. Mostly, it would be part-time provision. Apart from that facility, there is a variety of other child care, most of which is expensive and some of which is for only a few hours a day, which does not help the working mother. It can be a workplace nursery. For the good of family life and of children, mothers and fathers, whatever child care policies are developed, we should be talking about child care facilities for all children, not just for those of working mothers. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) will say more about this later. Whatever the cost of child care facilities, if they are available only for working


mothers, whenever a Government decide that such women are not needed in the work force any longer, they will stop them.
In whatever form it comes, child care is an essential part of bringing up children. After they are two or three, because of their essential curiosity, most children want more than can be provided in the best of homes. At that age, they learn more than at any other time in their lives and as most of us cannot provide enough stimulus in our homes, we look to outside agencies. My plea is, as it always has been, that such a facility should be available for all our children. If we are to have priorities and to move step by step, we must ensure that poverty does not deny children access to such facilities while we allow those with money access to better facilities.
An example has been provided by Warwickshire county council, which has recently decided to close its nursery schools—as they come under the Department of Education and Science, children can attend them free of charge—and then to let them out on a commercial basis. That means that the poorer people in the area for which the county council is responsible will not be able to afford the nursery education that was available to their children free of charge, and there is much poverty within the area. If we push private provision too far, many children will be unable to participate in pre-school activity because it will be far too expensive for their parents.
Many of the Government policies and many of the attitudes that have been developed have contributed to a denial of access to nursery education for many children. I believe that this will contribute to a breakdown in family life, which the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South claims that the Government have enhanced. The freezing of child benefit, the removal of income support for 16 to 20-year-olds, the introduction of poll tax, the shortage of housing and a host of other things have all been contributory factors in breaking down family life. Life has been made harder for families.
I was appalled to receive a letter from a woman who had taken on her murdered sister's two children. She had taken them into her home alongside her own two children. No money is involved. The children are not in the care of the local authority. As she is hard up—the family is not rich—she applied to the Department of Social Security for the extra £1 for that group of siblings as well as for her own. She argued, "I have taken on another family and there are two first-born children." The Department said, "You cannot have the money. You can have it only for one, because you are a unit. You can apply only in respect of the older child in the situation in which you find yourself." I could not believe it. Equally, I could not believe the letter I received from the Department. I was confident when I wrote that it would accept that a mistake had been made. After all, what is £1?
That sort of application of a rigid rule undermines what we understand by family life. It undermines also what the woman is doing in bringing up the children of her murdered sister.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South talked about what he would like to see in future. We would not need to have so many dreams, hopes and ideas about and for the future if the past 11 years had not been so bad for our children. Things have become worse for a minority of our

children. For a growing minority of our children, things continue to become worse. Until the Government grasp that nettle and understand what family poverty is, what child abuse is and how some families depend on child benefit and the uprating of it, we shall face year in and year out the problems that we are discussing. At the same time, more of our children and more families will suffer.

Mr. Peter Viggers: There have been some wide-ranging and thoughtful contributions to an intersting debate. I do not propose to add to the wide-ranging nature of it. Instead, I shall concentrate on one narrow issue about which I feel strongly, and on which I know that I am right, and that is the remarriage of widows.
I shall spell out the background. As people become healthier and live longer, and as their old age is healthier, it is possible for more and more people to contemplate remarriage later in their lives. My mother remarried at 74, and the last five years of her life were as happy as any other part of it. I shall concentrate on widows because the longevity of women is greater than that of men, and pension schemes are normally based on male contributions rather than those made by females. Increasingly, widows are in receipt of pensions because of the contributions that their first husbands made at their places of work. Those pensions will cease, however, if the widows remarry. Some of these pensions are quite generous.
I represent a considerable number of service men and their families including many service widows who are living on naval pensions. If one of those widows wants to remarry, she has to face the agonising choice of remarrying and forfeiting the pension—it would fall on remarriage —or remaining alone when it might be her inclination, and that of the man she has met, to remarry. It is an agonising choice and it should not have to be faced by anyone.
In many instances the widow will decide that she wishes to remarry. Her second husband—I am talking mainly of elderly people—will probably be already retired. If that is the position, the women will have no pension rights associated with her second husband. It will be a post-service marriage. If she should be widowed again, for a second time, she will be left without the first pension that she received by virtue of her first husband's service. She will have no pension by virtue of her second husband's service because it was a post-service marriage. People should not be placed in that position.
I have spent years trying to explain to Ministers that there is a real problem. Unfortunately, I am getting nowhere. I have been told consistently that if a woman decides to remarry it is only right that she should cast her lot in with her second husband and look to him for a pension arrangement. As I have said, that is impossible if the second husband has already retired and it is a post-service marriage.
I shall deal specifically with examples that concern the Ministry of Defence because many of my constituents are service personnel, but my argument can be applied generally throughout the public and private sectors. I greatly welcome the introduction by the Ministry of Defence of a discretionary right. The widow who marries a second time can ask for her pension from her first husband to be reinstated. The rule is that if she is significantly worse off as a result of the second marriage and losing the first pension, the Ministry, in its wisdom,


will contemplate and grant a pension that goes back to the one that was paid to the widow by virtue of her first husband's service.
I ask hon. Members to put themselves in the position of a widow who is contemplating remarriage who does not know whether she will have her first pension restored as of right. Discretionary restoration is not good enough. No sensible woman with a significant pension that enables her to live in some comfort in retirement will cast that pension aside with only the hope that the pension fund trustees will restore her first husband's pension if she should be left a widow for a second time.
A most respectable elderly couple who are known to me—I hasten to say that they are not constituents of mine—went away for a weekend and returned to tell their friends that they had married in their absence. They told me privately that they had done nothing of the sort. If they had remarried, the woman would have lost her first pension and would, perhaps, have been left without a pension on second widowhood. As I have said, this is a serious problem.
Unlike many of the other submissions that are made to the Treasury and rejected by it, I am delighted that what I am suggesting would not cost anything. I know that there are a significant number of widows who would like to remarry but who cannot do so. As a result, their pension from their first husband continues. If we were to introduce a rule that had the effect that if a widow remarried and was left a widow for a second time her pension from the first marriage would be restored automatically, more widows would enter second marriages. Socially that would be desirable. It is my own family experience that it would make for a great deal of happiness in the community, and it would not cost anything. We would be suspending the first pension only during the second marriage. If a widow were not left a widow for a second time, nothing would happen. If she were to find herself in that position, the first pension would be restored.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes an important point that applies to a significant number of people. Perhaps we should ask the Ministry of Defence how many letters from Members of Parliament it has answered. Two leading members of my association are in this position. I suspect that the Ministry of Defence may have been dealing with this in an atomistic way. Perhaps we should combine.

Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. David Martin: Join the club.

Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend asks me to join. Perhaps we should table a joint parliamentary question.
I am not picking out the Ministry of Defence as a bad employer, but my experience is based on it and on service personnel. I am considering public and private sector pension schemes generally.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider this issue carefully; it is of great importance to a few people. The change that I have suggested would be the best one. Others say that changes should be made to the pension arrangements of the second husband and that his pension scheme should bear the burden of the post-service marriage. For technical reasons, I do not think that that is as good as the right to restoration of the first pension. I am grateful for the opportunity to make that small point.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on securing this debate. Since coming to the House nearly four years ago, he and I have tried to maintain as reasonable a working relationship as possible, bearing in mind our views on politics. I give a genuine welcome to the debate and to the issues that he has raised.
The debate is a bit of a pot-pourri on the issues of the family. I am the youngest grandfather in the House; I have two grandchildren. I believe in marriage as an institution, as I have now tried it twice. There is no such thing as an easy divorce. We must try, not only in legal but emotional terms, to provide resources to enable families to remain together or, if that is not possible, to disengage in such a way that it damages neither the partners nor, more important, the children. That disengagement is more traumatic for children than the final outcome of a divorce and separation, and that trauma can remain with the children for many years and affect many aspects of their lives.
We should discuss this matter not in a pious way but by recognising that every statistic is a human being in a complex relationship. Our constituents come to see us about the housing, economic and social consequences of the breakdown of marriage.
An on-going problem for women is violence in the home, which leads them to seek refuge in order to protect themselves and their children. When women cannot find refuge, they remain in marriage and in those violent circumstances. Insufficient resources are made available for local authorities to provide refuges for women who are suffering from violence. In many parts of the United Kingdom this evening, women will suffer, not for the first time, from the violence of a partner but will be unable to take themselves to a place of refuge either because none exists or because the police are unwilling to take action.
The problems that we are discussing are complex, and we shall be unable to resolve them by 7 pm. If we are committed to the concept of the family, its role must be maintained and developed. For the majority of people, there must be genuine choice in employment, training, health care, housing, personal social services and pensions. Access to those services must be consistent with the needs of the family either as a group or individually. I want to concentrate not on the generality of family policies but on the suffering of families because of a breakdown in personal relationships, which affects the behaviour of children.
By the time that this House adjourns on Friday afternoon, two mothers in Britain will have lost a child because of solvent abuse. Solvent abuse knows no social barriers. It can affect a family who are well off, on middle income, on benefit or who have no social problems. It is a growing problem. Resolve is a national charity that works with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Health and the Home Office to establish the nature of solvent abuse and to introduce measures to protect individuals. Between June and December 1990, there were 725 reports of solvent abuse. There were 230 reported deaths of young people because of solvent abuse, and a further 215 were involved in criminal activities because of it.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has campaigned long and vigorously on the issue of solvent


abuse, which has led to changes in the law and to growing recognition by the Home Office of the need for special measures to take care of those involved in solvent abuse. Despite those changes in the law, an escalating number of children are becoming involved for a short or a longer period. It can make someone a chronic abuser or a social abuser. Social abusers are mainly those who come under peer pressure at school not to "chicken out". A child may abuse solvents only once, but such is the toxicity of the materials used that one sniff is sufficient to kill. I am aware of two cases of the so-called chicken syndrome, whereby a friend was saying, "Come on, try it; it gives you a bit of a high, but there are no problems, we have done it before" —and those children are now dead.
Society must see what it can do to identify children who are at risk, why they become involved and what we can do about it. The House has rightly turned its back on criminalising those who are involved in solvent abuse, and has looked to social changes to try to tackle the problem. Forty-six per cent. of children who die from solvent abuse are found at home. Children under 17 are most at risk, and single parents in particular need support.
Many of those who died were under the influence of other people—older children or their peers. It is important that the House should make a commitment to give resources and to work with Resolve in the voluntary sector and with local education departments to develop special projects to bring to the attention of children at school the damage that can result from solvent abuse and to enable teachers to identify children at risk.
We must deal at local level with those who sell solvents. Often, shopkeepers sell solvents because they are ignorant of the use to which they will be put. Following legislation, it is now a criminal offence to sell solvents to children but, tragically, a small hard core of retailers are prepared to sell solvents to schoolchildren knowing that they will not be used for the stated purpose. That is not just my view; it is shown in surveys conducted earlier this year by Resolve and local authorities in Cheshire and Newcastle. Industry and the Government should give additional financial resources to assist Resolve to run training schemes at local level for retailing employees who sell these dangerous solvents.
School practices should be changed. There is no need to use Tippex when water-based solutions do the job just as adequately and pose no danger to schoolchildren. Resources are not always needed—all it takes is a common-sense approach by the Government and retailers to remove from shop shelves those solvents which are readily available to schoolchildren and which, if sniffed, may kill them. Any Government who are concerned about the family, particularly children, can take that reasonable approach on board.
Amusement arcades are another source of child exploitation. Since 1987, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) has twice tried to change the law to regulate the amusement arcade industry. The Minister may reply by saying that the Home Office is satisfied with self-regulation. My experience as a Member of Parliament who has been involved with groups of children addicted to amusement arcade gambling is that self-regulation does not work. Few amusement arcade owners do anything practical to prevent children under 16

from using their premises. Indeed, were it not for the under-16s using those arcades, the clientele would be significantly reduced.
I know of cases of young people who became involved in car thefts organised by adults who had hung about amusement arcades, first giving the young people money to feed their habit and then using them to steal, while the adult criminals got away with the booty.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke eloquently about problems in inner-city areas. He will know of the large-scale inquiry into prostitution rackets involving female and young male teenagers who are recruited from amusement arcades because they are vulnerable and because their gambling can be exploited.

Mr. Alton: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about the acute problems in the centre of Liverpool. Is he aware that one in five of those who visit the amusement arcades are estimated to be under nine?

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is right. That happens in my area as well. When local authorities have attempted, through their planning and other regulations, to prevent such premises from opening, their decisions have been overturned on appeal by the Department of the Environment, and the Home Office has been unwilling to replace self-regulation with a regulatory system.
Why should the industry be worried about the loss of self-regulation? Arcade owners who do not allow children on their premises have nothing to fear from legislation. Only those who exploit young children and those who allow their premises to be used by criminals who exploit children have something to fear.
Every day, tens of thousands of young people are involved with amusement arcades. Some take part in criminal activities; some steal from their parents; some leave school at lunchtime to go to an amusement arcade and use the money that they have been given for food to feed their gambling habits. Many of the problems that relate to children being out of school can be traced back to local amusement arcades.
If we are serious about dealing with this social problem, Government assistance is needed, as well as involvement by parents and local authorities. If we do not tackle that problem, a small percentage of the young generation will be involved in a gambling tradition which is exploited by criminals and others involved in prostitution. I am sure that the House would not like that to continue without doing something about it.

Mr. Simon Burns: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on his success in the ballot and I thank him for enabling us to debate this important issue. We live in an age when practice may have changed but, sadly, all too often attitudes have not. The prevailing attitude among many people is that a wife should stay at home, looking after the children, or locked to the kitchen sink preparing her husband's tea or evening meal. I do not in any way downgrade those mothers and wives who wish to stay at home. It is a noble profession to look after the house and bring up children and it should on no account be criticised.
We live in a different era when many women prefer to go out to work or have to go to work from financial


necessity. There are two sides to the coin. Everyone should have the right to choose to stay at home and should not be criticised for doing so or be considered dull, miserable or old-fashioned for following that course. Equally, everyone should have the right to choose to go out to work, earn a living and receive the stimuli of a working profession and career.
It is utterly wrong to think that, as soon as one has a child, one must give up the career that one enjoyed in order to stay at home. The trouble is that, all too often, people look down their noses at working mothers and think that they are worse mothers for going out to work or they think that the children are deprived of love and affection and the security of a home.
I speak from a little personal experience. In the light of some of the suggestions that I shall make, perhaps I should declare an interest. My wife is a working wife and we have a young daughter who is just over three. From the day my daughter was born, I knew that my wife would continue her career as soon as that was feasible and that that would entail someone else looking after our daughter during the day. Perhaps foolishly, but for the first 12 months after my wife returned to work, I was embarrassed when the inevitable question came: "What do you do with your daughter during the day?" I fell into the old trap. I thought that people would think that we were less good parents because one of us did not stay at home to look after that child. I used to hum and ha but finally, with many justifications and explanations, I would confess that our daughter went to a creche during the day. I explained how wonderful it was for her, how she enjoyed the company of other children, how she was learning to share more and get on with other children at an earlier age than she would otherwise have done.
After about 12 months I thought about the way in which I had behaved and realised that there was no reason why I should attempt to justify what we were doing or feel embarrassed about it. There was nothing wrong with it. Certain children enjoy the company of other children all day. They enjoy the stimuli that they get from each other, the constant attention given by the people looking after them, and the love that they receive—provided that they return in the late-afternoon or early evening and at the weekend to a secure and loving family home.
I make no apology for my view that everyone who wishes to take that decision should be able to do so. Sadly, some people have that decision forced upon them for economic reasons, and we must consider the awful cost of child care for people who wish to return to work. The problem affects not only those families on low incomes or single-parent families, although it is obviously greater for them. In many parts of the country it is virtually impossible to break out of the poverty trap. It is a vicious circle which traps them at home when they would dearly like to have the choice of working. Their weekly income is simply not sufficient to enable them to afford a child minder or place their child in a creche and still provide a reasonable standard of living for themselves and their families. Facilities range from child minding, which is a relatively inexpensive option—although I choose my words carefully—to the kind of creche in which I place my daughter. That costs £500 a month which, over a year, is more than it costs to send children and young people to many of our public schools.
Child care can be an expensive business and it is out of far too many people's range. There is a range of options

for the care of one's children—creches, child minders and nannies who live in—but they all cost money. The Government must consider carefully the question of tax relief on the money that is paid out, which is earned income in all cases. The tax man twice gets his share of the cake: he taxes the money earned by the parent and does not give tax relief on the fees paid out of that taxed income. For many single parents, tax relief could make the difference between staying at home, trapped on income support and other benefits, and going out to work to gain experience and build the foundations of a career that will lead to an improved standard of living.
There is a problem with child minders. A few councils adopt rules that I find quite incomprehensible. My own county council—Essex—is one of them. According to that council's rules, one child minder may look after only three children. Clearly, child minding cannot be made into a business with 12 or 18 children being looked after by one person, because that is not sensible, but nor is it sensible to apply a rigid rule. When I dealt with a constituency case 18 months ago, I could not understand the county council's resistance and lack of flexibility. A lady who had been a registered child minder for 19 years was looking after three children. Then, one of the mothers found a place for her child for half a day each week in the local nursery run by the education authority. She was expecting another baby and wanted that new-born child to be looked after by the child minder whom she had used for many years. With the older child being looked after only on a part-time basis, the child minder would, in effect, have been looking after three and a half children a week. She was not allowed to do that. The rules said that she could look after only three children. There was no argument, no compromise and no flexibility. That seemed to me to be pointless bureaucracy. It is a pity that local authorities are not more flexible.
Playgroups and nursery schools are not the answer when it comes to helping women back to work. They do a magnificent job in their different ways but they usually provide facilities on a part-time basis—a morning or an afternoon session. Even if one is lucky enough to have placed one's child in a nursery on a full-day basis, the hours may not be compatible with one's own working hours if one wants to work full time. In those circumstances, one is stuck. Nursery schools are not an easy option unless one works part time.
Young mothers should take the opportunity to form their own playgroups of creches tailor-made to the needs of their friends and neighbours. Some mothers who would not want to go to work in an office love looking after children and, for reasonable remuneration, they could enable their friends and neighbours to go out to work.
I urge the Minister to use all her influence to press the case with the Treasury, which, for many reasons—some of them perfectly understandable—has been resistant to the idea of providing tax relief. We made a step forward in the Budget introduced by the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, last March, in which the £8,500 earnings rule in respect of taxation for workplace nurseries was abolished. In Chelmsford, and, I am sure throughout the country, more workplace nurseries have been developed. Smaller companies that could not embark on such projects on their own have joined forces to set up workplace nurseries. That has been a bonus and it has worked.
The Treasury should reconsider. It should not be blinkered. It should not close its eyes but should


re-examine the need to help more people back to work. It should stop condemning people who desperately want to go back to work—or to go to work—but cannot because they are stuck in the poverty trap.
It is all a question of attitude. Three years ago, I tabled an early-day motion calling for creche facilities in this place. I think that I was the first hon. Member to do that. We have a work force of thousands and I see no reason why we should not have a creche. Government Departments are now developing workplace creches. At the time, some of my hon. Friends thought that I was bananas. They thought that mine was an extraordinary view for a Tory to take and that there must be something wrong with me. I was new to this place and they probably thought, "He does not know his way around." Their attitude was that Tories did not behave in that way. I ask, "Why not?" Why should not those employed in the Palace of Westminster—not only hon. Members but the back-up staff of thousands, many of whom have young children —enjoy the same benefits and help as those employed elsewhere?

Ms. Richardson: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman supported the idea of a creche in the Houses of Parliament which is something for which we have been working for a very long time. I hope to goodness that we will have a creche one day. What about the need for creche facilities for the staff in this place who work split shifts? Catering staff come in, prepare lunches and have a couple of hours off in the afternoon. They then have to return to prepare dinners. They need support and help. Care for children within the confines of the Palace of Westminster would be very useful for those people.

Mr. Burns: That is an extremely valid point. I hope that we can address that problem if right hon. and hon. Members could persuade the powers that be—

Ms. Richardson: The Leader of the House.

Mr. Burns: Yes indeed, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—that creche facilities are a reasonable proposition. They are not a gimmick or something that we have to fight over for years to come. However, I accept that my view might be unfashionable among many of my colleagues.
Maintenance and divorce are clearly pressing problems facing many women. Even now husbands or partners can walk out of the family home and totally abandon any financial responsibility for their children. The mother must then turn to the state for support. Far too often, the level of income support that the state provides is well below that which the errant husband or father could afford to raise the children involved. We may find it incomprehensible that fathers or partners can behave in that way, but that is a major fact of life and it happens far too often.
I welcome the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be presenting to the House to change maintenance payments and to make those errant husbands and fathers financially responsible for their children. That legislation is long overdue. Frankly, it should have been introduced years ago and it would have avoided so much of the suffering and misery that have been inflicted on mothers.
I hope that the law will be changed so that if an errant husband or partner goes abroad he will not be able to evade his financial responsibilities because the Department of Social Security will be able to track him down wherever he goes in the world. That would be a step forward. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), has been active and extremely helpful in that regard.
Why on earth should women have to suffer the hardship, misery and upset of raising their children on their own, which in itself can be extremely difficult, and in addition be burdened with financial worries and problems because of the selfishness of their former partners? I am pleased that that problem will be considered and hopefully, in the majority of such cases, there will be a genuine improvement and benefit for mothers who are treated in that way.
The Lord Chancellor's Department is currently considering proposals about the future of our divorce laws. Family life is the essence of society. However, there must be a balance. There is the too-easy divorce whereby one partner, after a row or an argument, can simply throw up his or her hands and say, "Right, that's it. I can't stand you any longer, I'm going." That is too easy. On the other hand, it would be wrong to have the law too tight so that two warring factions are imprisoned in a home from which they cannot break out. There is nothing more debilitating or miserable for a child than to have to live in a family home with two parents for ever at each other's throats.

Mr. McCartney: We must consider reconciliation in family courts and the need to make things as easy as possible once it has been decided that a marriage has broken down irretrievably. In this country we tend to enter legalistic situations in which the only people who benefit from a marriage breakdown are the solicitors acting for either party.
We must rely on our perception of what is best for the children. Very often the last thing of concern to legislators is the children. We tend to create legislation under which it is even more difficult to end marriages.
I hope that we will not argue, as has been argued in another place, that divorce is far too easy and that it should be tightened up. I have found that in a general sense the legalistic activities involved in divorce are as damaging as the break-up itself. We should have family courts that can ease the position for children and the parents.

Mr. Burns: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. We do not want to relax the divorce laws so that a partner can simply walk out of the home and so end the marriage. There should be more attempts at genuine conciliation. However, once it has been established that the marriage, for whatever reason, has irrevocably broken down, it is only right that the marriage should be ended as swiftly and painlessly as possible for the children and the partners involved so that they can then get on with rebuilding their lives and repair the damage and emotional scars.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South for allowing us this debate during which we have been able to raise many issues about which we all feel deeply.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I whisper to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) that nothing makes life for a young Member of Parliament so perilously difficult with his colleagues as producing a few practical and sensible ideas about how the Palace of Westminster could work more easily. I speak with fellow feeling, because I once found myself in the office of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for having suggested a better use for accommodation. I will leave it at that, but I felt for the hon. Member for Chelmsford in that respect.
In some ways, this debate is rather like Emperor Nero and the burning of Rome. Although in normal circumstances I would have agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), who said that we can discuss such important matters only by private initiative, it is incredible that the House cannot have time this week to discuss the Gulf, while we can debate this subject and mining subsidence tonight. I will leave it at that, because such matters would be more properly raised in an application under Standing Order No. 20. However, I believe that it is legitimate to refer to Gulf families. I ask that factual question straight away in the hope that the Home Office can provide some answer.
At Dumbarton Denny Hall on Friday night, and frequently since, I have been asked, as a Scottish Member of Parliament, whether it is true that nearly or more than 40 per cent. of the service men in the Gulf are Scots. The figure that is given is 13,500-plus, but there has been much comment on it. I simply ask whether someone in the Official Box or from the Ministry of Defence can answer that factual question. At the public meeting that was arranged by the Dumbarton Labour party and attended by many people of no party at all, I could not answer that factual question.
Hon. Members have received a letter from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in which he says:
Dear Colleagues"—
I imagine that it is to every Member of Parliament—
As you may know, many Gulf Support Groups have been set up throughout the UK by the mothers, families and friends of personnel serving in the Gulf, and by others who wish to help. These groups aim to provide comfort and support to our personnel over and above the welfare services available from the Armed Forces. They are writing supportive letters to our troops and sending gifts from their local communities.
I believe these activities are worthwhile and should be encouraged. If there is a group in your constituency I am sure they would welcome your interest and support.
So it goes on.
My childhood memory of my mother is that, for six years, she was involved in the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association. I do not in any way run down the work that SSAFA does, but I offer my controversial opinion that such letters are not the way in which to help families in the Gulf. They should be told the brutal truth that any land battle on top of an oilfield would mean such misery that it would resemble not the events of 1939 but those of 1915 and 1916—the Somme and Passchendaele. Before anybody dismisses me, I do not know whether anybody present has actually been tank crew. I have. Although not in anger, because it was on ranges, I have helped to fire tank guns. Everybody had better be very clear what the prospect is. It is absolutely appalling for those families. It is no service at all to say

that anodyne support is needed. What is needed is a change of policy, a ceasefire and a facing up to the reality of the mire of the middle east.
I do not want to abuse the debate by speaking further about the actualities of general strategies in the Gulf, but certain questions are highly pertinent to the debate. The first question arises from Harry Powers of Galashiels, who received a good deal of publicity during the Christmas recess. Mr. Harry Powers is a state registered nurse working at the Dingleton psychiatric hospital near Melrose. He approached me in circumstances in which, as a 44-year-old man, he has received no money from the Ministry of Defence for more than 10 years.
There is the argument that, somehow, reservists were getting money and therefore had an obligation to the state to go to a war in the middle east, supposedly under the umbrella of the United Nations—what a fiasco that has become. Nevertheless, the question arose about the rights of reservists. Under precisely what legislation are the Government asking people who are medical reservists or who have some other particular skills to be recalled to units? There is doubt. The 1907 legislation—the original Haldane Act—makes it clear that the Territorial Army and, by implication, the reserve forces do not have any obligations other than to join up in the United Kingdom itself for the defence of the United Kingdom. Nothing —

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am finding it very difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman is now saying to the subject of the motion, which is family policy.

Mr. Dalyell: When family men are called out of jobs in civilian life to serve in the forces, it causes enormous family disruption. Under what Act are the Government doing that? Is it the 1907, 1953 or 1980 legislation?

Mr. McCartney: I do not wish to refer to a specific case, but we are dealing with children in the Gulf and concern for them. Will my hon. Friend consider that currently, in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other Gulf states, there are a considerable number of children who have been illegally abducted from the United Kingdom and now find themselves in a war zone? Will my hon. Friend consider what we can do in the short term and in the long term when hostilities end to get those children out of the war zone and back to the United Kingdom where they belong?
Perhaps we should consider bipartisan initiatives. Those children are the original hostages. They are not only unable to return home but are in a war zone. Their mothers in Britain are in the agonising position of not only not having their children with them but of knowing that their children are locked up in horrendous conditions in Kuwait and in surrounding areas.

Mr. Dalyell: Those matters are for proper discussion and study. In family terms, they are exceedingly important. I have a very difficult constituency case—I am sure that all hon. Members have—of a Scots girl who is happily married to a young man in the Yemen and who has problems with issues relating to nationality, proximity to war and so on. I am only too conscious of the relevance of what my hon. Friend says.
There is a second moral issue. Do families have an obligation to send their menfolk to war when that war could be nuclear? I refer to 1945 and 1946. I recall that Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel of the OKW, the German


high command, was executed at Nuremberg on the ground that he had not resisted orders that were crimes against humanity. If service men, on reserve or otherwise, argue that they are to be asked to perform crimes against humanity—that is a highly topical matter when, this very morning, Defence Secretary Cheney did not rule out nuclear weapons, as did Vice-President Dan Quayle, as did General Colin Powell—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said that he would not abuse the procedures of the House. He is now doing so. He must refer to family policy.

Mr. Dalyell: I should have thought that being yanked out of one's job to go to war was a matter of considerable concern to the families involved. Of course, I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the benefit of the Home Office, in the hope that it will answer my question, I refer to 28 June 1978, when the United Kingdom gave a legally significant assurance to non-nuclear weapon states that are parties to the non-proliferation treaty of 1968:
Britain undertakes not to use nuclear weapons against such States except in the case of an attack on the UK, its dependent territories, its armed forces, or its allies by such a State in association with a nuclear-weapon State.
On 17 November 1978 the Americans accepted a similar undertaking. Do the Government respect those undertakings? Have they set out any code of conduct under which men may be extracted from their families to go to a war which all too probably will turn out to be nuclear?
My third question is about the position of Muslim communities in Britain. In a written question today, I asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
what advice he is giving to those who have booked pilgrimages to Mecca or Medina.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), replied:
Our advice to visitors to Saudi Arabia is that it is better to avoid travel, unless they have strong reasons to go there. The cities of Mecca and Medina are a good distance away from the area of hostilities but air services to Saudi Arabia are restricted. It is for individuals to decide whether to proceed
The lifetime pilgrimage of many families in Britain to holy places is often arranged, for financial and other reasons, some years in advance. It is a matter of central importance to the family. Are we saying that they should not go?
What is the policy on Ramadan? These are matters of considerable importance to a great many families, not only in Britain but throughout the Muslim world. The war is already much longer by modern standards than other wars, such as Yom Kippur and the six-day war, and looks as if it will go on and on. Now that we are into day 18, what is the policy of Muslim families in Britain in this exceedingly delicate situation?
I promised to limit my speech in terms of time. The matters that I have raised are important questions to which the Government should address themselves in these terrible circumstances. The blunt truth is that, in all this, the loss of face of politicians is as nothing to the loss of human life and the catastrophe for the environment.
We are on the issue of rights and, before I finish, I wish to mention the rights of the animal world. I am not ashamed to raise the matter. There is a moral question to consider. Do human beings have the right by their own

folly to pursue brutal wars in which entire species may become extinct from the face of the planet? I refer not only to dugongs, sea cows, hawksbill turtles and green turtles. Many other species will face extinction if the war is allowed to continue. Therefore, I shall use any parliamentary opportunity, as will some of my hon. Friends, to suggest that we should accept the proposal of the Magreb countries and Iran and have a ceasefire in the folly being pursued in our name and that of the United Nations.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It was 1942, three years into the second world war, when the Beveridge report on social conditions in Britain came out. I doubt whether the type of speech that we have just heard was made in the parliamentary debate on that report.
If I may be permitted to respond to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for just one, or perhaps two, sentences, the Iranian leader said that he saw no suggestion whatever of movement from the Iraqi leaders. Also, the Gulf support groups deserve recognition. They are doing honourable work.
I do not wish to take away from any hon. Member the opportunity to put forward his or her view as often as possible on subjects of interest, but I take family policy seriously. I first introduced a debate on it 13 years ago and did so a second time in 1982. I felt that it was an intrusion in the general feeling in the Chamber today for the hon. Gentleman to use the opportunity to raise again issues which he has other opportunities to raise.

Mr. Dalyell: No, we have not. That is part of the trouble.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman please not interrupt my speech? I did not interrupt his.
There are 11 million children under the age of 16 in Britain. They and their parents could make good use of a debate on family policy which lasts only for three and a half hours. Among those children are some whom I would call the children of the state. I shall return to them on a different day. They are children in care, children in penal institutions and children whose life chances have been blighted, not because they have experienced failure but because they and their parents have never experienced success. They are the groups who deserve more attention. One cannot dwell on them in this debate except to say that the marvellous work of, among other organisations, the Children's Society, with its central London project, shows that 40 per cent. of children under the age of 16 who are at risk of being drawn into child prostitution are formally under a care order. They are children of the state; they are under the care of local authorities. The system is failing them. It is a double failure. The first failure is that the children have to be taken away from their families in the first place. The second is that they run away from the caring institutions of the local authority. We should pay more attention to the children of the state. They are a sign of how our emergency services are needed and how they sometimes fail.
I prefer to deal now with the way in which the family perspective and life cycle is brought in to social and economic policy. I could not have improved on the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin). The word "well-being" is a good way


of bringing together welfare and material well-being without implying that either the definition of welfare or simply more material goods is necessarily the answer.
All the way through, from Rowntree in 1901, to the Beveridge report in 1942 and the work of Margaret Wynn, who in 1970 wrote the first book "Family Policy" in Britain, we have had to recognise that no caring services work unless they build on the aspirations and reflect the interests of ordinary people in Britain.
Ferdinand Mount, to whom I wish success as editor of The Times Literary Supplement which competes with Auberon Waugh's Literary Review, wrote a book in 1982–83 entitled "The Subversive Family". It showed that every major institution, whether Church or state, -ism or -wasm, which began by seeking to destroy the influence of the family had to recognise that the family had more continuity of power and ambition than ideology could compete with. Eventually the ideology, whether Christianity or Marxism, had to adopt the family rather than seek to supplant it.
There is no driving force on this earth as powerful as the ambitions and aspirations of the urban working class. I could go a stage further. Perhaps I will obtain the assent of the hon. Member for Linlithgow. By considering the family perspective and whether the family's life cycle comes into social and economic policy, we can unite Muslim and Christian, urban and rural, north and south, and rich and poor. In no other way is there any continuity of interest between generations with which people can identify, whatever their ethnic or other background.
The family brings together people who are Catholic and non-Catholic in Northern Ireland. It brings together people of all backgrounds in our inner cities. It rightly shows that, although we may not all have children, and celibacy is not an inherited condition, we have all been brought up by parents or parent substitutes. Caring for children and our elderly parents is something which we all have in common. The state can never be a substitute; strength comes from building on the confidence and competence of ordinary people in Britain.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchlcy (Mrs. Thatcher) said in the best speech at the UNICEF debate in New York on 30 September last year:
for children the family is the most important factor in their lives".
The same applies to many elderly people, especially the frail elderly, whose children look after them in their turn. It is part of the inter-generation contract. She continued:
The dominant influence on a child's health is the family…The dominant influence on a child's behaviour is the family…The dominant influence on the success of a child's education is the interest taken by the family in the work of the teacher and the school.
The most important thing that we can do as parents…
after looking after the material needs of our children, is to give our children our time, our affection and our wise counsel.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South rightly identified, there are a series of issues where family policy can become part of our politics. We know that, as politicians, we fail at times. If I wanted to be partisan I would point out that it was a Labour Chancellor in 1968 who said:
Next year I hope to introduce full selectivity for family allowances and to do it in such a way that people who are not in real need of them do not draw them at all.
It is exactly the same point of view as that put forward by Mr. David Willetts—who may come to the House; then we could have a debate on equal terms. The problem with

having a debate with him outside the House and me inside is that he gets the publicity and no one pays much attention to me.
Succeeding generations of Conservative politicians need to realise that a universal child cash allowance is the means of recognising that taxable capacity is reduced when people have dependent children and their needs are increased. Child benefit is not a poverty measure—it never was and it never will be. Income support is a poverty measure.
Child benefit is a taxation/benefit issue, and the sooner that we can find a way to think of tax, net of child benefit, in the hands of the Inland Revenue, with the Department of Social Security used as the paying agency, with the Chancellor being the only person concerned with the level of child cash allowance—as I now refer to child benefit —the sooner we will return to common sense.
A working couple with a mortgage of £30,000, with two personal tax allowances and the additional married man's allowance, who are paying higher rate tax, receive the equivalent of 12 child benefits, without Jilly Cooper, David Willetts or anyone else complaining about the waste of tax expenditure. I hope that we shall hear slightly less about how a switch to child tax allowances is better—it is worse.
Anyone who listened to Radio 4's finance programme this morning would have heard someone asking, "Should I pay off my mortgage as I have some money?" The answer was, "No. You would be a fool to do so." Mortgage interest relief on a £30,000 mortgage is equivalent to three child benefits and continues until we retire, or even when we are pensioners. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) nods in agreement.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I was nodding in agreement because I am in agreement. Benefit paid to the mother, especially to those with children under five, is—as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) said—of great importance, and is at the heart of Conservative philosophy. It must not be lost in too many clever taxation techniques. Support for mothers with young children is important and support for the family is important because it creates allegiance within society, and that is at the heart of Conservatism.

Mr. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for intervening. Money is not the only issue. As he says, allegiance and loyalty are also important.
I have the booklet from a series of Thames Television called "City Priest Voices from the City". Thames rightly gave a voice to many Church leaders in inner cities—not merely Anglicans but priests from many free and Pentecostal churches. The common ambition of people, whether their background is Afro—Caribbean, Asian or poor white, is the same. They have the same sense of solidarity. To use one priest's words:
The ground is level at the foot of the Cross.
That reminds us about caring for other people and sharing their burdens. In this rich, western country we can afford to arrange matters so that people with the burden of a particular handicap can be helped. The most obvious handicaps are physical and mental, but we must also remember that at any one time three quarters of our children are looked after by one fifth of the households. If we do not introduce a life cycle approach, we shall not get very far.
In a book called, "Family Matters, Perspectives on the Family and Social Policy" published on behalf of the Royal Society of Medicine, in a chapter which I contributed, I examined the issues of: families and economic well-being—money and the chances of employment; and families and human needs—health, housing, child care and handicapping conditions.
When Michael Rutter produced his book, "15,000 Hours" which studied the results of 11, matched, south-east London comprehensive schools, he showed that the most able children at the worst school produced poorer results than the least able children at the best school, even though the staff:pupil ratio was the same, they had the same number of pound notes per child and they were in the same education authority. The authority's only concern was to keep secret the names of the schools that were doing especially badly or especially well, so that parents should not know what was happening to their children. That is an example of how the mood has changed. I would not want to stigmatise schools, but if we did not let parents know about such research results, we could not be said to have freedom of information.
This may be considered a partisan point but, when we tried to focus on child immunisation a year ago—a serious area of child health—because 20 per cent. of our children were not getting the immunisation that they should have got, the Labour party wished to set a lower standard in the inner cities because of the difficulties there. Yet children in the inner cities have the greatest needs and, therefore, we should set the highest standards there. Professionals working there should set out to achieve results as good as those achieved in Esher.
In my chapter in the book "Family Matters", under the heading "Families: Challenges and Responsibilities", I examined the following:
Preparation for Marriage and Family Life
Specific Supports for Families
Parents and Children
Family Violence
Substance Abuse
Ageing and Families"—
the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) mentioned substance abuse in a very good speech—and under the heading "Families and Major Institutions" I referred to:
Government
Media
Community Institutions
Law".
An editorial in The Guardian on 24 December 1990—that shows how important it regards family policy; it printed the article the day before Christmas when no doubt all of us are studying the newspapers with extra special care while we are waiting for the midnight service—said:
Here is a Thatcherist theme worth pursuing"—
referring to it being time to look after the family. Unless we can build that upon helping the family to look after themselves as well as being willing to step in when the family cannot cope, we are lost.
We need to do the things that bind us together. We need to set outcome targets so that we reduce the number of children in persistent trouble with the courts. At the moment one male in three has a serious criminal record by

the time he is 30. Too many children come into care. The emergency services, at great expense, must come in after a failure rather than give support before it.
My last argument, which I hope will gain support from hon. Members on both sides of the House as it follows on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), is that if we say that looking after children is as important as looking after cars, perhaps we could convert some of the massive tax expenditure on company cars and the massive commercial cost of providing car parking spaces at work to the provision of help for children, whether they are looked after at home, near the home or at work.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I was interested in what the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said about Beveridge's reforms in 1942. I recall newspaper articles written at the time which described, in dramatic terms, the evil giants that had to be slain—he was talking about freedom from want, ignorance, fear and illness. The Labour Government in 1945 introduced the great reforms, based on Beveridge's plan. Such was the force of public opinion in Britain at the time which was in favour of those reforms that no one dared to attack that. Those reforms were introduced by a Labour Government with consent from the Conservative Opposition at the time.
The Labour Government introduced better pensions, the health service, universal education and decent housing at affordable rents. That brought families like mine out of the slums into decent housing. They achieved that by an immense programme of public sector building. The Conservatives' record of the past 11 years has slipped a great deal from the view that they held in 1942.
Labour wants to progress from Beveridge who—understandably, in the 1940s—wanted the father to be the bread-winner and the mother to remain always at home, to produce the conventional picture of mum, dad, two children and a dog. We maintain that women have a right to work and to receive proper payment for it, and that adequate child care facilities should be available to them, so that they can play a fuller role in society. The Government are tying themselves in knots, because half of them think that women should stay in the kitchen, and the other half agree that they should be able to work. The Government have failed to devise reasonable policies. As time is short, I will leave it at that.

Ms. Jo Richardson: We have all benefited from hearing the differing views of right hon. and hon. Members in this interesting debate. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on his choice of subject, and even on the blandness of his motion, although I quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's reference, in respect of families, to the Government
continuing to support and increase their confidence and competence by extending choice".
In fact, the Government do not have any policies for supporting the family. The reverse is true.
The words "family" and "family policies" have been bandied about for years. Many right hon. and hon. Members—although none of those present in the Chamber now—wail and wring their hands over the disappearance of what they think of as the ideal family, of


the kind to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) referred. It is meant to comprise a working husband, dependent wife, and two or three children—all living securely and happily in a nice home. That is some people's vision of a happy family, but it has never been true to say that all families are like that.
In reality, in former days there were millions of poor families. Women often bore large numbers of children, who lacked sufficient food. Many kids had to go to work because even the pittance they could earn was a necessary part of the family income. There was no national health service, no welfare benefits, and no sense of responsibility on the part of Governments in those bygone days—which some look back on with a false sense of nostalgia.
Today, more women with children than ever before go to work, but more families also experience divorce. Greater numbers are also remarrying and starting new families. Families come in all shapes and sizes. Some are one-parent families, some contain a disabled person—no one has mentioned that—and in others it is the parents rather than the children who need to receive care. They are as entitled to that care as are children. The well-being of all types of families is fundamental to society's well-being, particularly at times of great change.
Families deliver love and care to children, and it is within families that children learn the ground rules of good citizenship. The way that parents manage that job is important to us all, because children are literally our future. That is why Labour places so much emphasis on the need for coherent policies that will nourish and strengthen family relationship as they really exist—and not as some people imagine they should be.
We all want children to grow up in a secure and loving environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) mentioned the problems that confront children today, yet, over the past 11 years, Britain has suffered the biggest increase in poverty levels of any European country—and its children have suffered most. In 1979, 12 per cent. of children lived below the poverty line, but that figure increased to a shameful 26 per cent.—more than double—by 1986, and today more than 2 million children live in families that are on or below the poverty line.
Low wages, changes to the benefits system, poor housing, and less child care mean that millions of parents —especially single parents—cannot keep their children off benefit and off the poverty line. They need new opportunities and to be able to care for their families.
Everyone needs a home, yet the Government have presided over a decade of increasing homelessness, and allow the scandal of bed-and-breakfast accommodation to continue. That form of housing in itself creates strain, and often results in families breaking up. It has also increased the number of children suffering illness and accidents, and the number of babies born prematurely or at low birth weights.
When a Labour Government come to power, one of their first policies will be to provide sufficient decent and affordable housing to meet the nation's needs. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South referred to the right to buy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said, we are in favour of that right, but believe that alongside it should run the opportunity for local authorities to build good quality, affordable, rented property for those who cannot afford to buy.
Child benefit was introduced by the last Labour Government, and it remains the only benefit to be paid directly to the person who cares for the child—in the overwhelming number of cases, its mother. The Government's own social security statistics, published a few days ago, show that child benefit is currently worth less than at any time since 1977, and worth less to families with three or more children than at any time since Labour introduced the family allowance 46 years ago, in 1945.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Eleanor Rathbone, an independent Member of Parliament, took that legislation through Parliament before the 1945 election. The House debated that measure for three hours, and no one voted against it. It is not quite proper for the hon. Lady to claim the credit only for her party.

Ms. Richardson: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point, but it does not change the fact that the value of the family allowance has been greatly reduced.
The Government froze child benefit in 1987, and now propose to increase it from £7.25 to £8.25—but only for the first child. In 1977, during the life of the last Labour Government, the allowance was worth £6.24 at 1990 prices, and the present payment of £21.75 for three children is the lowest since 1945. That is disgraceful, and it is scandalous that the value of that benefit should drop so low.
The sharp increase in 1989 of nearly 8 per cent. in income support for lone mothers sent the Government scurrying away to find a means of compelling fleeing fathers to pay maintenance, to reduce dependence on income support. I support the principle, but we must ensure that women who cannot or will not reveal the identity of their former partner will not be disadvantaged. A future Labour Government will restore the full value of child benefit by uprating it in line with inflation for every child in the family. We believe that that is the way to do it.
The motion calls for extending choice in employment —"Hear, hear" to that. The Government, however, have never had a coherent employment policy. We need a talent-based, highly skilled work force, and we need to develop and train the various talents that people possess. Many of those talents are undervalued—they are certainly underpaid, particularly those of women who struggle to work for their families.
The Government proudly say that Britain has the largest number of working women in any European country. That is true, but the increase has come about because of the need for part-time work to fit in with family responsibilities. Part-time work can be excellent and valuable, but the majority of part-time women workers do not receive, pro rata, the pay of full-time workers. Most of them have no right to holiday and sick pay entitlement, which is a disgrace. Home workers, and temporary or casual workers, are treated even more badly, but the work they do is a valuable part of industry.
Last Friday, I received a letter from a constituent which pulls the whole thing together. It relates to a traditional family—a working husband, a dependent wife and three children. The husband is self-employed and the wife has no job outside the home. She had a job but lost it, because the firm for which she worked went bust. The husband owes £350 tax to the Inland Revenue, the couple cannot pay their poll tax and they are in arrears with the mortgage.


They are afraid that non-payment of the poll tax will put them in prison and the children into care. They fear that, if they cannot pay the mortgage, they may lose their home and the children may have to go into care.
My constituent is trying to find a job. The letter states:
I'm not lazy and I'm not stupid but trying to find a job is very hard. I do work at home gluing folders and various other things. This is time consuming and very tiring. Most nights I'm up till 3 a.m. doing it enabling me to earn £40 a week.
She thought of killing herself, but decided that that would be selfish because of her husband and children, and I agree with her. I have not written to her—frankly, I do not know what to say.
The Government's attitude to training is appalling. There are no coherent policies, which means that not only those who want and need to work cannot increase their opportunities and choice, but the whole community loses the profit that training in our education system and beyond would bring. Our public subsidy of child care—about which much has been said—is the lowest in Europe. Our employment legislation is riddled with inconsistencies and loopholes. If we continue with such policies, we shall be Europe's dumping ground.
We must invest in training, child care, effective employment rights and decent pay if we are to ensure a decent standard for families. We must provide more opportunities at work, to work and to continue to work and earn, as well as ensuring better provision for family care. Child care is not a substitute for family care, although I believe that good quality child care helps in the development of children—as I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said. Child care supports families and helps them to support themselves.
A Labour Government will engineer a package of child care, because we believe that parents should have options. I believe that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) talked about tax relief on child care, which is one option that might be helpful. However, giving tax relief on child care or child care vouchers would not provide a single extra place, even in a workplace nursery. We need workplace nurseries, good quality, decently paid child minding, pre-school education, including pre-school play groups and nursery education, and out-of-school care to give parents options to choose the best for their children.

Mr. Burns: Does the hon. Lady accept that, if there were tax relief for working mothers or potential working mothers, it would encourage the development of more creches to meet a need? Those people who previously could not entertain the idea of working because it was financially impossible could probably bridge that gap with tax relief and find it worth while to work. That would bring more demand for creches and other forms of child care, which would mushroom as a result.

Ms. Richardson: We shall have to see how it develops. The Government must co-ordinate with local authorities on all the available options. If the Government decide to give some tax relief, we shall be able to see how the system works.
I am also keen that the Government should ask local authorities to give them their action plans for child care, so that we can ensure that child care is available throughout the country and not on a patchwork basis. We need

partnerships with local authorities, employers, parents and voluntary agencies, but the Government need to co-ordinate those partnerships—and the Government are not doing so. That is a great shame, because it deprives so many parents of the option of going to work, leaving it all to the hit and miss of the workplace.
We have the most rigid maternity rights in the whole of Europe. We have no statutory paternity rights and no concept of parental leave, which would allow us to start to change the culture whereby it is always accepted that the woman looks after the children and the husband goes out to work, without sharing in the rewards and responsibilities of child care. We need all those developments, and we need the Government to introduce them.
I know that somebody, probably the Minister, will say that we cannot adopt the directive on maternity and allow the European standard on maternity provision because it would cost too much. However, my information is that it is estimated that only 1 per cent. of female workers in Europe are pregnant at any one time, so it would hardly be a costly exercise—[Laughter.] I obviously said something funny.
Finally, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that today is the 20th anniversary of the setting up of the first women's aid refuge. I hope that the Minister will join me in paying tribute to all those people who worked so hard to provide refuges throughout the country. From a survey that I have just conducted, I know that we have only 275 refuges for victims of domestic violence. We have been talking about divorce—some of those refuges are for people fleeing from violent partners. We do not have enough refuges, and we need six times as many places. More work needs to be done in collecting statistics on how many women are in difficulties. That is something that Government should and could be doing.
Only one quarter of all local authorities provide, or help to provide, refuges. That is a disgrace which should be corrected. It is just another example of the way in which the Government could help to provide secure funding for refuges to enable them to continue in the proper way.
Like others, I have had to range over a wide variety of options—policies that the Opposition believe should be introduced. As hon. Members know, Labour will have a Ministry for Women. We believe that policies need to be co-ordinated, and that the work of Government Departments in connection with women and the family should be no exception to that rule. There should also be a Minister for children to co-ordinate the work done by a number of Departments to deal with children's problems. Together, those two Ministries should ensure that all our policies bear in mind the fact that the family is the responsibility not only of itself but of everyone else, and that Government must play its part.
It is, I suppose, a pity—from his point of view—that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South will not be here after the next election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—but I hope that, when we have a Labour Government who start to introduce a coherent set of policies, he will watch and applaud and will remember this evening, when he initiated the debate.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) did not necessarily wish


to be congratulated on obtaining this slot, or on choosing this important subject for debate; nevertheless, I congratulate him on both. He has prompted an extremely interesting discussion, in which a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House have been able to make some valuable comments.
At the beginning of his speech, my hon. Friend mentioned that he could have chosen nuclear physics or local government finance as his subject. It was his second choice that made me wonder whether I was not rather fortunate to be responding to a debate on family policy!
My hon. Friend gave us an interesting quotation from Philip Larkin about the make-up of a family. A number of other hon. Members have asked the same question: what is the family today? Philip Larkin was right in what he said about grandparents. I am a grandparent, and the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is the youngest grandparent in the House—at any rate, I have no reason to suppose that he is not; he may also be the smallest, but we do not know about that. Perhaps he can help us in the context of what the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said about the number of pregnant women in Europe at any given time.
I am very interested by the definition of "the family". Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed interesting views. The continuing debate about the proper role for women within the family hinges on the sad fact that there are currently far more marriage breakdowns than there have been in recent years. I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton): it is nightmarish to realise that one in three marriages appear likely to result in a family breakdown.
All that gloom, however, should not mask the fact that the death of the family and the death of marriage are by no means on the horizon. It is true that we now see more divorces and more single parents; it is true that more female members of the family choose to go out to work —some because they wish to, and others because they feel that they must.
We must not exaggerate the changes, however. If the institution of marriage did not exist, I believe that we would busily set about inventing it, because it is the best and most satisfactory way in which to ensure that people
can raise young children against the background of love, warmth and affection described by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). He cited the speech that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made to UNICEF, in which she said that time, affection and wise counsel were the most important factors to be devoted to the raising of children.

Mrs. Fyfe: Can I take it from the Minister's remarks that she, like me, disapproves of parents sending their children away to boarding school at the tender age of seven?

Mrs. Rumbold: I cannot agree with the hon. Lady. Such matters are entirely up to individual families; it would be entirely wrong for me, as a Minister—a mere politician —to dictate what people should choose to do with their children. That would be ridiculous. I fear that the hon. Lady will not be happy with that response, but I am certain that it is the right one.
Most of the issues that we have considered relate to the question that I mentioned earlier: what is the family? Is it the nuclear family—man, woman and two or three

children—or the larger family, including grandparents, uncles, aunts and so forth? I strongly believe in that second concept. I share the sadness of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill that some of the more bureaucratic processes in—especially—local government planning in past years should have led to the break-up of the extended family, and, in my view, great damage to the basis of our society.
It is perhaps comforting to reflect that we are now seeing a slight reversal of that inherent damage, in that more grandparents are caring for their grandchildren while mothers or fathers are at work. It is reassuring to believe that we have recognised the value of the extended family. I trust that not only individuals such as the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and myself, but the wider world —including those who control such matters—will learn the lessons and perceive the truth about policies that have been set out so badly.

Mr. David Nicholson: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend say that. Does she agree that, although in many instances this country can convey its ideas vigorously to its European neighbours, we may be able to learn from them in the case of the extended family?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that we shall take note of the benefits of the extended family, and the support that it provides—not only when marriages survive for a number of years, but when the partners ultimately find that they cannot make the marriage work, and must resort to as amicable a parting as possible without upsetting the arrangements for the secure raising of the children.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Mossley Hill that the current review of family law encompasses not only an examination of the legal provisions, but the jurisdictional procedures and other arrangements for handling family business in the courts. I share his anxiety that we should not lessen the difficulties involved in achieving divorce, but should instead concentrate on maintaining the family and ensuring that, when divorces must take place for the benefit of both partners, the interest and welfare of the children are of primary concern.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South has a particular interest in Relate. I assure him that my right hon. Friends the Secretary, of State and the Minister of State are undertaking a review of the work carried out by Relate and other organisations which counsel couples who are going through difficulties. The Government are sympathetic to and support the work of Relate. However, we cannot undertake to increase funding while the review that I have mentioned is being carried out. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with that.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: I have not had the opportunity to hear the whole debate, but I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's reassurance about Relate. I am aware of the work of that body in Wolverhampton and other areas. Relate has asked me whether, if the Government wish to assist it in its work of trying to ensure that there are no further breakdowns, they could give it greater support. My right hon. Friend's kind words are a great encouragement, and I thank her for them.

Mrs. Rumbold: I have also talked to Relate, and I agree that its work is of enormous value.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who is not able to be in the Chamber at the moment, spoke about a widow in his constituency who remarried and lost her pension. We will write to him and explain the rules about the issues that he raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) spoke with great conviction about the importance of the role of the wife and mother in raising children. It is interesting to look at what British women actually do and compare it with the second-guessing about what they ought to do or might want that appears in newspaper articles. A high percentage of women choose not to work when their children are five and under. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said that a woman's work in raising small children is invaluable. Without that basic care for the very small child, we cannot hope to have the building blocks for a sound and well-ordered future society.
The mother is of the greatest assistance during the early years when the baby is growing and learning the basic rules, such as not touching something that does not belong to him, and learning to talk, communicate and mix with others. Sadly, some girls find it difficult to cope with that task. Organisations such as Home Start assist young women in the extremely important task of raising small children. I value that work, especially when it is given willingly by young people who understand that it may well be a personal and financial sacrifice. However, for the welfare and benefit of the young people that they are raising the sacrifice is well worth while.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) raised an equally important issue when he said that many young women have careers. Young women are raised and educated in the expectation that they may go to work, and it is perfectly reasonable and natural to suppose that many of them will look at marriage, child raising and careers as a whole—a totality. They do not necessarily separate one from the other. Some women say, "I prefer to take time off while my children are small." Others reasonably say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, "I think that it would be better if I continued with my career, and in order to do that I will make the right arrangements for child care". That brings me to the issue of child care.
I remind the House that the Government have looked carefully at child care and took steps towards improving it in last year's Budget. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is listening carefully to the debate, and no doubt he will read the Official Report and note the views of hon. Members about the way in which child care is tackled.
Last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, at that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ensured that employers who provided workplace nurseries would have a tax benefit. That benefit extends further than many people appreciate. It is available to employers who participate in the management of nurseries at the workplace or anywhere else, as long as they are involved in the management of those schemes. It applies not only to

workplace nurseries—those that are on the premises or on premises financed by the employer—but to out-of-school care schemes, which are much more relevant to the requirements of the potential working mother.
Women often wish to go to work not when the children are babies, but when the youngest child reaches school age. At that point, the woman looks for some assistance, and the out-of-school care schemes are especially important for such women.

Mr. Dalyell: If the Minister is being more than polite and other Ministers really intend carefully to read the report of the debate, may I ask when I may expect an answer to my question about why Scots families with 10 per cent. of the population are apparently supplying 40 per cent. of service men in the Gulf?

Mrs. Rumbold: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a response. I hope that he will forgive me when I say that I am not immediately able to answer. However, I shall ensure that either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs takes note of the hon. Gentleman's valuable point.
Some of my hon. Friends spoke about child benefit. We have noted the various proposals and especially some of the views contained in recent booklets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said, they have raised a great deal more interest outside than would have been the case if they had been raised in this forum. Over the years, we have had many debates on the issue. It is accepted that such a large and comprehensive social security system will give rise to much public discussion and a great deal of analysis. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has already made clear—that child benefit is and will remain a strong element of our family support policies. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring some of my hon. Friends, whose interest in the matter is understandable.
I feel strongly about nursery education, but it is often suggested that somehow or other such education would provide a solution to the problems and difficulties confronting the working mother. It is no such thing. Nursery education should never be regarded in that light. In my view, it should be regarded solely as a great benefit for children between the ages of three and five, enabling them to learn better the social attributes and, perhaps, to start some of the other early learning processes. In no way should it be regarded as a mechanism to enable women to work. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, who is no longer in his place, would agree, as he raised the point. Nursery education is there for the benefit of children. It is available, in one form or another —provided by the voluntary sector, as well as by the local authorities—to 86 per cent. of the children in this country.
I wish, finally, to deal with the whole area of housing —a subject that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South mentioned and about which he feels very strongly.

It being Seven o'clock, the proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of Government business).

Orders of the Day — Coal Mining Subsidence Bill

[Relevant documents: Sixth Report of the Energy Committee of Session 1989–90 on Mining Subsidence ( House of Commons Paper No. 287) and the Sixth Special Report of the Committee of the same Session containing the Government's Observations on the Sixth Report ( House of Commons Paper No. 663).]

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Coal Mining Subsidence Bill represents the culmination of a process of practical reform over a number of years, aimed at improving the arrangements for dealing with subsidence damage caused by coal mining. Hon. Members will be aware that deep mining often lowers the surface land as the overlying geological strata subside into the void created by the removal of coal. This subsidence can result in damage to land and buildings located above such undermining. It has long been recognised as one of the inevitable adverse effects of mining deep coal.
The present arrangements for dealing with coal mining subsidence damage—whether by repair or by the payment of compensation—have two distinct kinds of origin. On the one hand, there were the private agreements between the original landowners and coal mine operators. These might involve a variety of arrangements to deal with the effects of subsidence, as it suited the parties at the time. When the freehold of coal was later taken into public ownership, existing obligations to land owners were preserved. But, otherwise, the National Coal Board—now the British Coal Corporation—was required to make good any subsidence damage or to pay compensation. This is the origin of the provisions in the Coal Industry Act 1975 dealing with coal mining subsidence.
On the other hand, because many landowners had sold the right to extract the underlying coal without any compensation for subsidence damage, considerable hardship was experienced by householders and others who had acquired or built properties on such land at a later date. The resulting sense of grievance led to the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957, which extended the statutory rights of compensation or repair to owners of all land and buildings damaged by coal mining subsidence, regardless of any agreement entered into by the landowner who had originally sold or leased the coal.
The position at present, therefore, is that an owner, occupier or tenant can seek remedy for subsidence damage either through the 1957 Act or through the 1975 Act. This results in confusion. We therefore want to consolidate the legislation into a single statute and, in so doing, take account of the good practice that has grown up in recent years.
Because the existing legislation was judged, over time, to provide inadequate compensation, British Coal adopted in 1976 a voluntary code of practice, which provides for compensation for damaged chattels and for home loss payments where, as a result of subsidence damage, a person permanently loses his home. It also provides

payments to farmers where a farm is no longer profitable because of subsidence damage. Subsequently, the corporation has undertaken to contribute to the costs of professional advice needed to prepare a claim; to make payments on account of residual tilt or structural distortion to repaired buildings; and to make payments to occupiers who endure prolonged inconvenience and disturbance while their homes are being repaired.
Nevertheless, in the early 1980s there were many who still regarded the operation of the subsidence repair and compensation arrangements as unsatisfactory. In 1983, therefore, the Government appointed a committee to review subsidence compensation, under the chairmanship of Lewis Waddilove. We are indebted to Mr. Waddilove and the other committee members for their work. The committee carried out a thorough examination of the position and made 65 recommendations in its report published in 1984. It concluded that the main thrust of the existing provisions, both statutory and voluntary, was right, although some significant gaps remained to be filled.
Most of the recommendations were accepted by the Government in the White Paper of 1987. In 1988 the Government issued a consultative document on the content of new legislation, and much useful advice was received in response. The Select Committee on Energy published last summer a timely and perceptive analysis of current subsidence issues, of which we have taken full account. The Bill is the result. It will repeal the existing legislation and replace it with a comprehensive new statute, which incorporates British Coal's voluntary undertakings.
I shall describe the contents of the Bill as briefly as I can. After the wide definition of subsidence damage in clause I, part II sets out the remedial action required in response to such damage. Clause 2 imposes an obligation on British Coal to take appropriate remedial action, whether by executing repairs, by paying for repairs, or by making payment in respect of any depreciation in the value of the damaged property.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is it true that British Coal has no obligation to purchase property that has been damaged? Would my hon. Friend be prepared to consider an amendment to make the provision rather tighter?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Indeed, there is no existing obligation on British Coal to purchase all such properties, although it does so in cases of hardship. If my hon. Friend cares to table an amendment it will undoubtedly be considered in Committee.
As with the existing subsidence legislation, the fundamental duty that I have outlined is placed on the British Coal Corporation as the owner of virtually all the coal and coal mines in Great Britain.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I appreciate that an onus is being placed on British Coal. If, in the not too distant future, British Coal should be privatised, would the obligations under this legislation still apply?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The obligations would be transferred to the new owners or operators.
Where, at present, the corporation issues licences for deep mining, it remains responsible for any resulting subsidence damage, although it can recover the cost of remedying such damage from its licensees.
Clause 3 requires a prospective claimant to serve on the corporation a damage notice describing the damage that has occurred. He must do so within six years of the first time at which he ought reasonably to have been aware of the damage. The clause makes clear what, under existing legislation, has been rather unclear and is consistent with the position as set out in my Department's guidance leaflet which was issued last year and accepted by British Coal. I believe that six years should be an ample period within which to allow the householder to make his claim.

Mr. Allen McKay: The Minister may think that six years is ample time for a person to notify the board, but cases of damage due to mining subsidence occur after six years. Will people be debarred from making claims in such cases?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The six years runs not from the conclusion of mining but from the time that the subsidence damage appeared in the property and the time at which the occupier should have been aware of it or might reasonably be expected to be aware of it. That covers the possibility of cracks being covered by panelling or something similar that prevents the householder from being aware of damage. The six years will run from when he might reasonably have been aware of the damage.
Clause 6 requires the corporation to provide the claimant with a costed schedule setting out the works necessary to make good the subsidence damage, as far as is reasonably practicable, to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant. That means that the standard of workmanship of such remedial works shall be that which would meet the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Minister has missed out clauses 4 and 5. Will he give a modest explanation of clause 4?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If I were to go through each of the 50-odd clauses, that would take up most of the time available for the debate. If the hon. Gentleman cares to raise specific points, should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall endeavour to respond to them in the winding-up speech.
Clause 8 specifies the circumstances in which British Coal may elect to make a payment in lieu instead of executing remedial works. These include situations where the claimant wishes to carry out the work himself, or to use his own contractor, and where it is proposed to merge other works with the works arising from the subsidence damage. Such payments in lieu are not intended to result in cash compensation in place of repairs.
Clauses 10 and 11 set down the particular circumstances in which British Coal may make a cash payment corresponding to the depreciation in value of the damaged property caused by subsidence. So far as housing is concerned, these circumstances are tightly defined because, in agreement with the Waddilove committee, we wish the primary duty placed on the corporation to be the repair of subsidence damage in order to minimise deterioration of the housing stock. Clause 11 does, however, require the

making of a supplementary depreciation payment in the case where a property has been repaired as far as is reasonably practicable, but where, nevertheless, there remains a depreciation in value as a result of the effects of subsidence. One example would be where a building remains somewhat tilted after repairs are completed.
The other clauses in part II complete the arrangements for remedial action to properties damaged by subsidence. Let me mention in particular the new rules governing the operation of so-called "stop notices" served by British Coal in cases where further damage to the property is likely. The corporation will be obliged to review the need to continue a stop notice within a year of the notice being given and to settle claims if no further ground movement will affect the property in the next 18 months.
Part III makes provision for additional remedies, over and above remedial action in respect of damage to land and buildings, and places on a statutory basis for the first time obligations voluntarily assumed by British Coal and recommendations made by the Waddilove committee.

Mr. David Ashby: One of the problems that has been encountered is that British Coal, when providing alternative accommodation, often does so in the form of caravans in the grounds of the houses that have been damaged. It is hard for someone living in what can be described as four-star accommodation then to have to live in a caravan for four or five months. Could such a person insist that his alternative accommodation is up to a standard to which he is entitled?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: British Coal will be obliged to provide reasonable alternative accommodation, although I understand that sometimes householders prefer caravans next door to their homes.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Part of the problem with subsidence repairs is that British Coal provides alternative accommodation to a reasonable standard. However, as it cannot afford more of such reasonable accommodation, there are delays in subsidence repair. Should not more facilities be given to British Coal so that it can take over more properties as temporary housing?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is essentially a matter for British Coal. We are laying down in statute the obligations and it will be up to the coal operator to meet the requirements.
The Bill makes provision for home loss payments to people who may lose their homes on account of exceptionally severe subsidence damage and for temporary alternative accommodation to be made available if that is necessary for repairs to be carried out.
There is provision to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the corporation to compensate householders for inconvenience and disturbance which may be caused as a result of repairs being carried out while the householder stays in the house. That would enable British Coal's existing voluntary arrangements for compensation for exceptional inconvenience or disturbance to be placed on a statutory basis, with improvements should that seem desirable. If these and other voluntary arrangements by British Coal work well, regulations may not be necessary, but the reserve powers will exist.
Part III also provides for different forms of compensation to farmers arising from subsidence damage


to their land, such as farm loss payments, crop loss payments, and payments to tenant farmers. It also provides for compensation in respect of moveable property or chattels damaged by subsidence and likewise as regards personal injury.
Part IV deals with preventive works to existing buildings designed to reduce the impact of subsidence damage, with precautionary works to new buildings, and with measures to deal with damage to land drainage systems.
Part V makes a variety of supplementary provisions, including a requirement on British Coal to reimburse any reasonable costs or expenses incurred by a claimant in the successful preparation and prosecution of a claim. I would draw attention in particular to clause 41, which allows the Secretary of State to direct the corporation to prepare and submit for his approval a scheme for the determination of disputes by arbitration. One long-standing difficulty associated with the present statutory arrangements has been the lack of informal and accessible means whereby disputes could be resolved speedily and inexpensively—that concern was expressed by the Waddilove committee. The Lands Tribunal will remain available to deal with disputes. However, the average value of a settled subsidence claim in respect of domestic property is under £3,000. It would not in general be justifiable to take disputes over sums of this order to the Lands Tribunal.
Recognising that difficulty, British Coal has helpfully and commendably arranged for the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators to operate an arbitration scheme tailor made to deal with subsidence problems.

Dr. Mike Woodcock: We have heard that British Coal is graciously bringing in an arbitration scheme, but there is a major defect to it. British Coal has to give the claimant permission to go to arbitration. How can an arbitration scheme be of any value when the person who is wrong in the dispute can prevent the person who wishes to challenge a decision from going to arbitration? The scheme is worthless unless claimants have the right to go to arbitration, rather than having to seek British Coal's permission to go to arbitration.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 41, which deals with the issue that he has raised. It would enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to direct the corporation to submit to him a scheme for his approval. An approved scheme would oblige British Coal to be bound by the arbitration and to offer arbitration in cases of the sort to which my hon. Friend has referred. It is our objective to allow all disputes that might arise under the Bill to be resolved by means of arbitration in so far as that is possible. In the event of a dispute, the onus of proof will remain with the corporation to show that any damage is not subsidence damage.
Clause 43 would allow the Secretary of State to direct the corporation to establish a further scheme for the investigation of complaints of unfair treatment or maladministration in connection with the way in which the corporation carries out its duties under the Bill. Again, this is a reserve power that can be used if necessary.
Clauses 44 to 46 require the corporation to provide information about future and past coal mining and subsidence damage to occupiers of property likely to be

affected, to prospective purchasers of such property and to local authorities in mining areas. British Coal is shortly to introduce a pilot scheme that will be aimed at notifying individual occupiers of future mining plans and that will become a general requirement once the Bill is enacted.
Subsidence damage can be a traumatic experience for the property owner or occupier. The Bill sets out the obligations of the coal operator and the rights of the property owner. It is the result of long and careful consultation and brings together several Acts and codes of practice into one Bill. I commend the measure to the House.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Subsidence damage created by coal mining has been a cause of great distress to many households. Those of us who represent coal milling areas know only too well from our constituents what a costly, time consuming and sometimes agonising experience it can be to make a claim against British Coal for subsidence damage. That is why my colleagues and I have argued for years that it is vital to establish a system that is both fast and fair.
Along with many others in the coalfield communities, we heaved a sigh of relief when at long last the Government found a space in their legislative schedule to introduce the Bill. Many of us cannot understand why it has taken so long to introduce such a measure.
The Minister rightly said that the Waddilove committee was set up in 1983 to examine the repair and compensation system for coal mining subsidence damage. Thanks to the activity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who first introduced a private Member's Bill designed to deal with subsidence damage in 1979, the committee's report was submitted in 1984. It contained 65 recommendations involving changes to the system. It took three years for the Government to respond to the Waddilove report. It was only in 1988 that concrete proposals emerged from the Department of Energy. Thanks to the substantial pressure that has been brought to bear on the Government by many local authorities and other organisations such as the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the Coalfield Communities Campaign and, to a large extent, by the Labour party, both nationally and locally, as well as by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Bill has been introduced seven years after the Waddilove committee was established.
We welcome the Bill. It is a long overdue measure—I see that the Secretary of State nods in agreement. Last year, as the Minister rightly said, the Select Committee on Energy reported on mining subsidence. It was aware that, despite British Coal's claim that it has implemented many of the recommendations contained in the Waddilove report, there remained considerable dissatisfaction with the repair and compensation system. We are pleased that some of the recommendations set out in the report and reinforced by the Select Committee's findings have been incorporated in the Bill. We welcome them in general terms but we may wish to improve the Bill's provisions at a later stage in our consideration of them.
The method by which British Coal notifies property owners of undermining was criticised by both the Waddilove report and the Select Committee. That is because British Coal fails to communicate with the


majority of those who are concerned. That failure could lead to difficulties with later claims. The introduction of an obligation on British Coal to inform owners or occupants of the risk of subsidence will ensure that the majority of owners or occupiers will be made aware of the risk. Despite the reluctance of British Coal, the Bill will allow the use of contractors of a claimant's choice, in certain circumstances, to repair subsidence damage. We welcome that as a positive step forward in handling the problem of subsidence in coalfield areas.
Another positive step is the inclusion in the Bill of a clause on the payment of fees incurred by a claimant. The reimbursement of expenses incurred by a claimant in the pursuance of his claim is a way in which the balance of power between claimants and British Coal can be more evenly matched. It is right also that there is clarification of British Coal's obligation to restore property. I am concerned, however, that as the Bill stands it is British Coal's responsibility to make good the damage so far as it is reasonably practicable to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant. That part of the Bill will not meet the problem satisfactorily. Many believe that it will allow British Coal to return property to them that is in a worse condition than it was before the damage occurred.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has referred to an issue that is of great concern to many in Wales who have suffered as a result of damage to their property caused by subsidence. Is he satisfied that the Bill deals adequately with permanent depreciation? Repairs may have been carried out in the past, or may be carried out now, but it may be found in future that the house is valued at a lower price than neighbouring houses when properties come on the market. I know of a house with damage that was sold for £18,000 whereas neighbouring houses are being sold for £30,000. It would seem that permanent depreciation is not covered adequately in the Bill.

Mr. Barron: An attempt is being made in the Bill to cover that problem. We shall have to wait to see whether there is permanent damage. I am pleased that a Bill has been introduced to deal with current damage. As I have said, we shall all have to wait to see how successfully damage is repaired.
I have said that the Opposition welcome the introduction of the Bill, but there are parts of it that are seriously deficient. Equally, there are significant omissions. Arbitration was rightly referred to by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock). The Bill allows the Lands Tribunal to remain the authority to deal with certain disputes. However, in a review of procedures for settling disputes that was issued last year, the Government made this admission:
Representations indicate that claimants are reluctant to appeal to the Lands Tribunal for three main reasons: cost, time and formality.
The review continues:
Given the formal nature of the proceedings (involving deposition of evidence and cross-examination) and the fact that British Coal will be legally represented, the claimant feels that he too must be legally represented, and is at risk of being required to bear British Coal's costs if he loses his case. Even if he wins, he cannot be certain of recovering all his own legal

and other professional costs since the Tribunal will award what it considers to be appropriate costs, which may be less than the costs actually incurred.
An answer that I received from the Attorney-General last week stated that in 1990 only eight cases of mining subsidence were settled at lands tribunals. That bears out the Government's review.
Moreover, the appeal procedure is lengthy. That is largely because of the time taken to prepare evidence that is in a suitable form for the proceedings. Given the Government's findings, we cannot understand why the Lands Tribunal remains the official appeal body for certain claims instead of a body of last resort.
Arbitration must be easily accessible and the delay must be as short as possible. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State "may" require British Coal to draw up an arbitration scheme, but the Minister tried to suggest otherwise. We have not been given details of timescales for arbitration, on what can be referred to arbitration and on the effects of either party not agreeing to it. If British Coal states that subsidence has not occurred, are we saying that it will have a veto and that the claimant could end up in a lands tribunal? If that is so, the Minister has a few weeks to correct it, because it will not get rid of the problems of damage and compensation in coal mining areas. I hope that he will take that on board.
We should be given the opportunity to examine the details of the arbitration proposals so that we can be assured that they will provide the best service to our constituents. Whatever arbitration system is finally established, our constituents will need access to free and independent legal and technical advice, because claimants have not had access to the same advice as British Coal.
In its 1990 discussion paper on dispute procedures, the Department of Energy conceded that that was necessary and proposed the establishment of an independent subsidence advice centre. That proposal had the support of the Labour party and the Select Committee on Energy and it met the case put by the consortium of authorities liaising on subsidence and the needs of claimants.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is compounded by the fact that, because of the many pit closures of the 1980s, all too often plans are not available to enable representatives of people who have suffered from subsidence to prove their case? All too often, British Coal has used that to blind people with science and keep them ignorant. Those people cannot pursue their claim because no plans are available for them to prove it.

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend may be right. The Bill will ensure that plans are made available to householders, but we shall have to wait and see how that operates.
We very much regret the dropping of the proposal for independent advice centres. The Government implied in a letter to me last November that an improved arbitration system that is accessible and well publicised will preclude the need for an advice centre. Labour believes that both are necessary, otherwise the odds will always be stacked in favour of British Coal.
The biggest problem with mining subsidence is the six-year rule. The way in which British Coal operates that rule is causing confusion on top of confusion. Sadly, the Bill will only add to that confusion. We know from evidence submitted to the Select Committee on Energy and from letters to Members that it is seen by the public as the


device that British Coal uses to avoid liability when properties have been damaged. Many examples of that were given to the Select Committee. It was told that the problem with the six-year rule is that it can be triggered by British Coal at any time, that when new owners resubmit claims they are sometimes regarded by British Coal as out of time and that it is becoming increasingly common in long-running cases for British Coal to close the file on the ground that six years have expired. If a claimant had not submitted a claim to a land tribunal within that period, British Coal could stop the claimant's case in mid-flight.
British Coal states in its coal subsidence guidelines that it will accept claims within six years of damage occurring or when it would be "reasonable" for the claimant to have known that damage had occurred. That has been agreed with the Department and now the Government want Parliament to agree it.
British Coal appears confused about the operation of the rule, which it says has been operating voluntarily for a long time. Senior members of its staff told the Select Committee on Energy last year that it had paid damages in areas where mining ceased many years ago and even in areas where it could not remember mining having taken place. At one stage, they told the Committee that mining
may have been in 1845 or something like that".
If the damage is there to see, is obviously current damage and cannot be dissociated from mining, then that is an acceptable claim. But if that damage is there to be seen and has been there for many years, it will reject it as being out of time.
In answer to a later question, British Coal stated that if there is an immediate indication that the damage did not happen last week, last month or even six years ago, that is still within the six-year limit. Senior representatives of British Coal seem to be more interested in entertaining members of the Select Committee when they come to give evidence than in giving a coherent interpretation of the rule. No wonder people outside have doubts about its implementation of the six-year rule.
The Bill should offer compensation for mining subsidence rather than erect statutory obstacles for people to fall over or for British Coal to hide behind. If the six-year rule cannot be interpreted fairly nor be seen to be fair, it should be removed from the Bill, and we shall table an amendment to that effect at a later stage.

Mr. Ashby: Surely the Bill is to be applauded because it puts British Coal in the same position under common law on nuisance or tort as the rest of the country. One cannot ask for more than that.

Mr. Barron: That is the problem. The six-year rule has no geological basis. The hon. Gentleman, who I understand is a member of the legal profession, and perhaps still is although he is an hon. Member, points out that it is a question of common law. What powers are we giving British Coal under the six-year rule if it can answer questions rightly put by members of the Select Committee about compensation by talking about mining that may have occurred in 1845? That might sound quite extreme, but that was the answer of a senior member of its staff. The rule gives it licence to use that timetable against people who must prove subsidence damage.

Mr. Robert Hayward: The hon. Gentleman cited several cases. Does he agree that in old mining areas, such as the one that I represent, it can take

at least two or three years to establish whether mine shafts or old ventilation shafts are on the site? Much of the six years may be taken up resolving the precise location of workings.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The question of what happens with old workings is not dealt with in the Bill. I can foresee ground movement from coal mining being ruled out by British Coal using the weapon of the six-year rule.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To clear up any misunderstanding, may I point out that the date of the mining is irrelevant. The six years runs only from when the damage occurred or from when the householder might reasonably have noticed it.

Mr. Barron: In those circumstances, why do we need a six-year rule? British Coal's arguments show that it is not clear about exactly how the six-year rule operates. It even said that it would have to send out information to areas to ensure that they operated in the same way. There is nothing coherent about British Coal's interpretation of that rule. If it is used against people who are going to arbitration or before lands tribunals, we will not have done anything to settle the matter once and for all.

Mr. Illsley: I was a member of the Energy Select Committee which questioned British Coal on this subject. We heard different answers from two people—an area director and a member of British Coal based in London. It was put to them that there was considerable confusion about the six-year time limit. The Under-Secretary of State clearly stated that it is six years from the date when the claimant should have reasonably known that subsidence damage had occurred. The Select Committee was given evidence of claims that had been refused as recently as last year when British Coal alleged that, because of the length of time between the date of mining and the date of the claim, the damage could not possibly have been caused by mining subsidence. That should not have happened. In some cases, British Coal stated that, because the period was longer than six years, the claim should be refused. Much confusion has arisen.

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend repeated exactly what was said last year to the Select Committee by the people who were executing the six-year rule.

Mr. Ian McCartney: In the latter part of last year, a constituent who had purchased a house in Lowton in my constituency came to see me. Within months of the purchase, he had problems relating to subsidence. He submitted an application but was informed by British Coal that it was out of time as the previous owner had had some work done, but British Coal refused to give him information about that. I wrote requesting information so that an appropriate claim could be submitted. On 6 December, an area director told me:
British Coal consider the detail of claims to be privileged information …I am sorry I am unable to be more helpful.
Yours faithfully".
British Coal refused to provide information to allow my constituent to consider whether his application was out of time, what work was carried out, when it was carried out and what subsidence was involved. With that one simple sentence, my constituent's rights were rejected by British


Coal. All that happened after the date on which British Coal published a document in consultation with the Government which said that that situation could not arise.

Mr. Barron: There will be opportunities later to obtain clarification on exactly what the six-year rule means and on exactly what can and cannot go to arbitration. I hope that we will be given answers to many of our questions by Report and Third Reading.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Members of the Select Committee have contributed to the debate. On a point of clarification, I should like to read the Select Committee's conclusions on this issue. The report states:
We see no reason why mining subsidence damage should not be treated in a way analogous to other damage, and do not believe that the limitation period for subsidence damage claims should be any longer than for other sorts of claims. We therefore support the proposed clarification of the six-year rule".

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman may have gathered from my comments that I disagree with the Select Committee's findings on that issue. Its findings are not founded geologically. We shall see whether clause 3 is unamended by Third Reading. I suspect that in a few years' time, if the Bill is unamended, we shall be arguing once again about the need to clear up the issue of compensation for subsidence damage.
For the Bill to provide a system of repair and compensation that is as fast and fair as possible, it will need substantial amendment. We hope that we can make those improvements during proceedings on the Bill and we look forward to giving our wholehearted support at a later stage. We shall not vote against the Bill, but we register our disappointment at the Bill's omissions and weaknesses. We hope that the Bill will be toughened up so that we can deal with compensation problems and with the terrible mess that has occurred throughout the country because the current legislation has failed many people and British Coal.

Mr. Andy Stewart: The introduction of the Bill gives me a feeling of great personal satisfaction and will be warmly welcomed by my constituents and other people living in coal mining areas. To use a well-worn football cliché, we are over the moon.
Many people, encouraged by the Opposition, doubted the Government's commitment to legislate. On behalf of my constituents, I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy for fulfilling that Government promise by bringing forward this complex Bill. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who allocates time in the parliamentary timetable, must also share our appreciation. Both my right hon. Friends have been patient and understanding about my incessant demand for new legislation.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who is the Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Department. It takes another PPS to know who really makes all the major descisions in a Government Department. I am sure that if my hon. Friend were not fulfilling his PPS's duty here today, he would be speaking

on behalf of his constituents who share with mine the trials and tribulations resulting from mining subsidence damage.
The Bill will rectify the deficiencies of the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 and the Coal Industry Act 1975 which, to all intents and purposes, left British Coal the offender and the judge and jury in deciding what repairs or cash compensation a claimant should receive for damage to his property. It was tough luck if one was a tenant. However, that unacceptable face of a nationalised company will soon be in the past, and not before time. The proposed changes will bring peace of mind for those who live in Britain's coalfields and will ensure, for the first time, that buying a home there will be an investment and not a depreciating liability.
North Nottinghamshire, including my constituency, is located on a raft of coal which has been mined for over 100 years, removing on average 17 million tonnes of coal a year, creating an unsupported void underground. In time, that situation causes trouble on the surface, and what trouble my constituents have had to face. As you would expect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, appeals for help and complaints against British coal have dwarfed all other constituency considerations.
During the past eight years, I have highlighted here and in the media many of the 2,500 cases on file and I do not intend to bore the House with repetition. Suffice it to say that my constituents' experiences and those of other hon. Members have played an important part in the drafting of the new Bill.
My constituents have asked me to express their thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Energy—my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)— for visiting 011erton and Boughton recently to see for himself the scourge of mining subsidence on property and people. Seeing is believing and his visit there will stand my hon. Friend in good stead as he pilots this important Bill on to the statute book.
Supporting our campaign for change with professional expertise and holding discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and his officials were two important groups of people: COALS, the Consortium of Authorities Liaising on Subsidence, representing the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire local authorities, and the united industry working party, comprising the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union, the Building Societies Association, the Confederation of British Industry, the Association of British Insurers, the Law Society and the British Property Federation. The fact that we have such allies fighting our cause must make British Coal feel like Saddam Hussein—except that nobody is out to get British Coal.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend has put his finger on it. The fact is that British Coal is a nationalised industry and does not need to be accountable to anybody. British Coal is judge and jury in its own cause. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the industry had been in the private sector we should not have had to put up with all this nonsense for so many years?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend has made his point clearly.

Mr. Allen McKay: As the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) knows, when the industry was run by private enterprise nobody paid out a penny.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member will remember that the last Labour Government introduced the Coal Industry Act 1975, which was supposed to put everything right. In fact, they made a mess of it and that is why we are having to tidy matters up.

Mr. George J. Buckley: The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point. British Coal is, indeed, a nationalised industry, but I was under the impression that nationalised industries were accountable to the Government. For three years, the Government have been reluctant to introduce legislation to make this nationalised industry accountable in a way that is acceptable to our constituents.

Mr. Stewart: We are in trouble today because those who nationalised the concern could run neither a Government nor a private industry.
Unlike Saddam Hussein, nobody is out to get British Coal. We want only to ensure that claimants receive fair and just treatment—not a penny more and not a penny less than is required to restore their property to its original condition, with compensation being paid for disturbance—and that the provisions apply equally to tenants of rented accommodation who, until now, have been treated as chattels. I am delighted that those matters have been addressed in the Bill, which will also improve standards of repair and set clearer time limits for making a claim. The limit will be six years from the time when a claimant could reasonably suspect damage and not, as British Coal would have us believe, six years from the time when the mining took place.
Emphasis will be placed on repairs rather than cash compensation, so as to maintain the housing stock. Where cash is paid, the compensation schedule must become a public document and must be registered on property title deeds. The reimbursement in full of a claimant's reasonable expenses is another welcome step, although the complexity of the claims procedure demonstrates the need for an independent subsidence advice centre, arid that matter will need to be dealt with in Committee.
It may surprise the House to learn that the first notification that my constituents have that mining is taking place in their area comes with visible signs of damage to their homes. British Coal has recently committed itself to introducing a pilot scheme for the notification of individual householders. That must become a permanent feature, and notice must be given at least one year before work commences.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that there will be a serious problem of blight on property in areas where notification has been given, because, even with the advanced technology now available to engineers, it is impossible to predict exactly what will happen to the strata that lie between a house and the mine beneath it? What will the Bill do to overcome the threat of blight?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that the Bill will overcome the problem of mining subsidence damage, because it is a fact of life. If one takes the coal out, there will be damage. We merely seek to ensure that those whose property is blighted will get a fair deal.

Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Gentleman is not addressing the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). Subsidence is a major problem in mining areas and it is an expensive one. Properties that may not themselves have been damaged by subsidence may, nevertheless, become unsaleable. Once it is known that mining is taking place in an area and once there is evidence of mining subsidence affecting certain properties, even properties that have not been damaged are blighted and can become unsaleable. There is nothing in the Bill to protect people from that.

Mr. Stewart: I have been trying to address myself to the Bill and to highlight its deficiencies and the matters that we wish to discuss in Committee. The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to one of the matters on which we shall have to concentrate to ensure that those whose properties suffer damage will get fair and reasonable treatment.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Perhaps I can assist my hon. Friend. If the Bill does what the Government and all of us hope that it will do, which is to provide an efficient and speedy remedy for those whose properties suffer from the effects of coal mining subsidence, the problem of blight, to which the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) rightfully refers, could be severely reduced. At least people will know that a swift and efficient procedure exists for solving the problems of subsidence.

Mr. Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for answering the question of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse)—probably in greater detail than I could have done.
Another criticism of British Coal that will have been addressed in Committee relates to the effect of stop notices, especially on family life. Such notices preclude repairs being carried out on damaged property until all mining in the area has been completed. That sounds reasonable to most people, but not to those who have to wait years for repairs to be carried out without a penny compensation being offered.
British justice is recognised internationally as second to none but not in relation to disputed mining subsidence claims. The 1957 and 1975 Acts intended the Lands Tribunal to be the first arbiter, but, alas, experience has shown that to be slow, complex and—where professionals have acted on behalf of claimants—expensive beyond comprehension. Figures of £100,000 were not uncommon.
The House will recall that during the debate introduced on 16 June 1989 by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), I told the House that two of my constituents, Mr. Goodman of Hucknall and Mr. Lancaster of Bilsthorpe, had referred their disputed claims to the Lands Tribunal and I am sure that all hon. Members will want to know the outcome. There is still no decision. The cases drag on and on, with British Coal's solicitors using every legal device in the book to delay and to confuse and intimidate my constituents.
Above all else, the Bill must ensure that we have a new disputes procedure to provide a cheaper, quicker and less formal way of resolving disputes. A local adjudication system by appropriately qualified experts or a mining ombudsman would suffice. However, we cannot allow an arbitration scheme such as that introduced in January this year by British Coal. It appeared to meet our wishes, but the small print revealed that British Coal had a right to refuse referrals if it wished. Heads, British Coal wins; tails,


the claimant loses. When I submit a case to the local or national ombudsman, it is not at the discretion of the local authority or the Government. The Standing Committee that examines the Bill must ensure that a truly independent referral system for arbitration is established.
Many of the Bill's 52 clauses are consolidation measures and require no comment. In order to allow other hon. Members to contribute to the debate, I have highlighted some of the issues that concern me and my constituents. However, when discussing this legislation, we must not forget—I was surprised that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) did not refer to this—that a balance must be maintained between the needs of the coal industry, which is Nottinghamshire's largest employer, and the consequences of mining activity. If we do not maintain that balance, miners' jobs could be threatened.
The Bill will clarify, revise and consolidate existing law. My constituents' hope for the future starts with supporting the Bill.

8 pm

Mr. Alan Meale: I want to thank and congratulate sincerely all the organisations that have spent so much time considering the problem and injustices of coal mining subsidence damage in the coalfield areas. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the Coalfield Communities Campaign, which has worked stoutly towards finding a solution to that problem. I want also to thank members of the united industries working party which has tried to pull together the other organisations in an attempt to put pressure on the Government to find a solution. Above all, I pay tribute to the Consortium Of Authorities Liaising on Subsidence—or COALS—which is at the forefront of the campaign to sort out the injustice of coal mining subsidence damage, particularly in the coalfield areas of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.
As hon. Members will know, COALS comprises 10 local authorities in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, They are the district councils of Amber Valley, Ashfield, Bolsover, Bassetlaw, Chesterfield, Gedling, Newark and Sherwood, and Mansfield and also the county councils of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, both of which are deeply involved.
I am extremely grateful to the executive committee of COALS which meets regularly and tries to organise and co-ordinate activity in an attempt to solve the problem. In particular tonight, I want to pay tribute to Mr. Brian Lewin, who was the co-ordinator of the COALS secretariat. Unfortunately, because of stress and ill health, he has had to announce his retirement. Some of that stress undoubtedly stemmed from the pressure on him throughout the campaign, which has lasted many years. All Opposition Members and some Conservative Members from that part of the country will wish Mr. Lewin well in his retirement and hope that his ill health will not last for too long.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), I have no intention of opposing the Bill's passage to Standing Committee. I sincerely hope that it will be noted that I would like to serve on that Committee. However, along with other hopeful Members, I await the outcome of the democratic process of the normal channels in this place.
I want to put down some markers for the Government to consider. I welcome the Bill, but much of what it contains is inadequate or needs changing substantially before the Bill can reach the statute book. My worries about the Bill are shared by COALS, and it might help the House if I try to deal with those worries separately.
My first concern is about arbitration. According to the explanatory memorandum, clause 41 sets out a method that allows the Secretary of State to direct British Coal
to make and submit for his approval a scheme for the determination of disputes by arbitration.
In other words, it is not a matter of "there shall be", but "there may be", and I suggest that it will apply only if British Coal agrees. That is unsatisfactory. In that respect, it is not what the proposal states but what it does not state that is worrying.
Clause 41 does not specify the time that the Secretary of State will allow British Coal to draw up such a scheme. That is important when we recall the attitude of the new chairman of British Coal to privatisation of the coal industry.
The Bill does not direct or compel the Secretary of State to give directions about the terms of the arbitration scheme. It simply says that he "may" direct. That leaves it open to interpretation or negotiation by British Coal. As hon. Members who represent coalfield areas will be aware, leaving matters to negotiations with British Coal or for British Coal to interpret has caused many of the problems that have led the Government to introduce this legislation.
Clause 41 contains no specific reference to independent arbitration; nor does it state how such an arbitration body would be appointed or from where its members would come. That is left to the discretion of British Coal and the Secretary of State. Bearing in mind the history of British Coal on that matter, that is perhaps not a wise decision.
Some of my colleagues have already referred to advice centres. Clause 41(2) provides that the Secretary of State "may" direct that a person may be appointed under the arbitration scheme to advise about it. That does not meet the criteria for advice centres as discussed previously in this place. Instead, it points to a role for the person concerned as that of a public relations officer for the arbitration scheme. That is not quite the same thing.
Clause 41 also does not provide for a subsidence advisory officer or a real advice scheme. Nor does it provide for any funding for an advice scheme or pre-funding for professional advice for claimants. Therefore, clause 41 needs filling substantially before it reaches the statute book. A readily accessible, local, independent advice centre is required to assist claimants through the maze of claim rights and procedures.
An effective independent service would also expedite the processing of claims and would minimise the number of cases that would have to be referred to complaints or arbitration processes. That would leave British Coal to do what it is supposed to do—to produce coal at a reasonable price. Its job is not to arbitrate or to be in the courts. Its job is certainly not to work against the coalfield communities to try to stop people rightfully getting repairs to their homes or property.
I want now to consider blight. The Minister is aware that clauses 10 and 11 provide for depreciation payments in lieu in certain circumstances. Schedule 1 sets out the method of determining the basis of voluntary depreciation payments. The discretion or obligation to buy in is required, although that is not covered by the Bill. That


would enable owners to have their properties bought out at the market price or to receive a depreciation payment for the loss of value of their property when any damage occurred.
I want now to consider deferment of repairs, or stop notices as they are more commonly known. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley has already referred to them. The Minister is aware that clause 16 provides for the review of stop notices and for the provision of emergency and excepted works. That would greatly worsen the situation, as it would allow, even with review, a stop notice or time limit imposition to be extended indefinitely by British Coal, thereby allowing it to delay settlement of claims or to prevent interim payments from being paid to claimants. That proposal would make the position considerably worse than it is at the moment.
We want strict time limits to protect property owners. That should be done together with the introduction of an obligatory buy-out mechanism on request if a stop notice and consequential blight has been current beyond 12 months. If a person has been left in such a situation in his own home for that time, it is reasonable that he should have every right to make such a request.
The next matter is incidental costs, a topic on which the Bill is totally silent. In my opinion and in that of COALS, not only damage caused by subsidence but the incidental costs of the remedy should be reimbursed. For instance, in a coalfield area, if a road must be closed because of subsidence damage, as often happens in Nottinghamshire, the cost of providing an alternative route, signs, barriers and additional road safety requirements should be met by British Coal, not by the local authority.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) knows that there are additional costs in respect of businesses. During repair work, a shop may conduct no business. It is not right for British Coal to be able to get around that and stop proper compensation being paid to that business. On occasions, businesses close because of such pressure.
Clause 44 provides for notices to property owners in respect of proposed mining operations. It seems to limit the requirements of such notices to the judgment of British Coal—that is to say, land that British Coal feels might be affected. Experience in my constituency is that British Coal always states:
Because of new mining techniques, land won't be disturbed.
How many times have hon. Members from coalfield areas heard that? That is a despicable attempt to impose on an area a system whereby people do not even need to be notified of what is happening in their area.
The Bill should stipulate requirements based not on self-judgment criteria but on fact. Also, under clause 44, the working of licences granted to private operators before 1 May 1991 does not seem to be covered. The Minister might want also to examine that matter, in particular in the light of his party's intentions on coal privatisation.
Clause 9 provides for obligatory payments in lieu to highway authorities and to local authorities that have a duty to carry out remedial works in connection with the maintenance of public services unless the Secretary of State disapproves. The Secretary of State's veto on that matter is unnecessary, as well as extremely undemocratic. The Bill is supposed to be about sorting out British Coal, not local authorities. If that criterion is followed, the Bill should read, "Local authorities should be paid in lieu for

any damage to their property or property over which they have default powers if local authorities request such a payment."
The next issue is outstanding claims. Clause 51 and schedule 7 are outrageous and need to be amended. For instance, schedule 7 specifically excludes previous claims from the new procedures unless the claimant withdraws the claim and resubmits it. What about the 33,500 claims that were accepted by a previous Minister from the COALS area? The hon. Member for Sherwood was part of a delegation, when the then Minister accepted all the claims honestly and fairly. All claims had been submitted on time and were accepted by the relevant Minister of the Crown. If the proposed scheme is undertaken, it will jeopardise all those claims. The Minister should think about that matter. If many people withdraw their claims and then resubmit them, British Coal will seek to rule them out of time. The Minister must consider those issues tonight and in Committee.
I now refer to the protection of future purchasers. The Bill is inadequate to protect the home owner from the problem of subsidence damage. For example, clause 46 states only:
The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the Corporation … to provide … information".
Even with the involvement of the Law Society, information will be available only if British Coal agrees. Such a system is totally useless, and the clause needs to be much more specific. It must provide for a local public register that may be inspected by anyone seeking information, perhaps before purchasing a property. Hon. Members have heard of many constituents being denied the right to know what has happened in respect of coal mining subsidence damage.
At the moment, the register is held by British Coal. If people wish to find out information about a property which they are interested in making their home, they must pay a small amount for it. For that, all they get are one or two sentences. If they want more information, they must pay a substantially larger sum, but that information is still not specific—just enough information to enable a building society to consider lending money on the property.
People who are about to make the biggest investment of their lives have the right to know whether something has happened to the home and whether repairs must be carried out. It is just not good enough for hon. Members to consider introducing a law that would not give the vast majority of people such a right. As legislators, we should have every responsibility to protect our constituents.

Mr. Jim Lester: I support the hon. Gentleman's point. In fact, I gave evidence to the Waddilove committee. Most hon. Members have had constituency cases in which subsidence has occurred. People have spent money on repairs that have turned out to be only superficial, and a subsequent purchaser then finds that not only does he have subsidence but no money to repair it. It is essential to have some provision to ensure an entry on the deeds or a record in the Lands Tribunal, so that people will know whether damage has been incurred.

Mr. Meale: Virtually all hon. Members have experienced exactly the same thing. I should like not something extravagant or unusual but something that will enable people to be informed about the largest investment


in their lives. I refer to information about past claims and any remedial works to the property that they seek to purchase.
Such a register should be kept by the local authority, not by British Coal. The Bill should impose a time limit not upon home owners but upon British Coal to compile such a register and to maintain it. That is a basic right.
The Minister will be aware that clause 3 makes a convuluted reference to the time limit for awarding damages, which is six years. Even an examination of the six subsections of clause 3 leaves many matters in doubt and open to misunderstanding—for example, whether it is reasonable to expect claimants to seek expert advice on facts which they have not observed themselves. In line with the COALS organisation, I contend that no time limit for restriction should apply.
If the Minister doubts that we can afford such an approach, he should examine the finances already set aside for compensation for subsidence which have accumulated by way of an additional cost added to every tonne of coal produced from British coalfields since the 1950s. According to the latest estimates, even taking into account the moneys used for repair, the sum is well in excess of £300 million. If the Government and British Coal can shut pits by this method of coal economics, surely they can set money aside and consider legislation to introduce a system of proper repair for home owners in the coalfields areas.
There are many things yet to be said on the proposals in the Bill. I sincerly trust and hope that in Committee we do not simply have a snow job but see a real attempt to sort out the terrible injustices which people in the coalfields have faced in their homes.

Mr. David Ashby: There is a great wealth of agreement among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the Bill. We all welcome it. Looking around the Chamber I see many faces that were here in 1983 when I came into the House. All those hon. Members have fought hard for the implementation of the Waddilove report and have been involved in various subsidence claims and the difficulties which arose from them.
Subsidence damage is one of the greatest injustices that we have suffered, especially in the midlands, the north and Scotland. For years on end, the National Coal Board, as it then was, mined under houses and caused subsidence. Communities and small villages suffered as a result.
Not many people realise that in mining areas there is a high proportion of owner occupation. In villages people's whose greatest investment was their home found that their very occupation, or that of their brothers or close relatives, was causing damage to their major asset. Those people were in a terrible dilemma. The major employer in the area was the Coal Board. Time and time again I have heard people say, "We cannot fight the Coal Board", or, "We do not want to fight the Coal Board." They said that it was not right because, after all, their husband or brother was employed by the Coal Board. So people suffered in silence.
We must remember a parallel factor. One of the greatest industries in Britain was the coal industry. It was all-powerful.

Mr. Barron: Yes.

Mr. Ashby: I do not mean it in the sense that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) thinks. The Coal Board was a powerful body in midlands areas. It was the largest employer. It pervaded everything. It was a source of income and the National Union of Mineworkers was one of the great unions. Between them, the Coal Board and the NUM seemed to control the very lives of the people.
The Coal Board had a gung-ho approach to its mining activities and the subsidence which was subsequently caused. So often it approached subsidence damage in a relaxed and easy manner, caring little for the victims. This Bill changes that. It gives people rights whereas before compensation was voluntary.
The process which led to the Bill began some time ago. The matters which I have mentioned were only too obvious in 1983 when I first represented Leicestershire, North-West. In 1984 we had the Waddilove report and in 1987 the Government's response. The approach to subsidence of the National Coal Board, later British Coal, almost visibly changed. There was a softening of approach. The board thought more about the victims and tried to help more. Much of what Waddilove recommended has been implemented voluntarily by British Coal over the years. Of course, that is not enough.
People have rights to compensation. We must consider what happened. People bought their houses and lived happily until suddently they found that someone had mined underneath, causing a nuisance. Their only resort was to voluntary help from British Coal in providing remedies. That was not good enough. People must have a right to compensation. When people buy property they have rights. They have the right not to have a nuisance on their property, or a tort—to mention the legal aspect. The Bill protects those rights.
We can argue about many of the details of the Bill in Committee and I suspect that both Conservative and Opposition Members will give details of cases and we shall have a great deal of discussion. But it will be to one end because we are together in seeking to rectify a great injustice which stretches back over the ages.
I am grateful that the Bill has been introduced because I and other hon. Members have approached successive Secretaries of State and begged them to make the Waddilove recommendations into a Bill. We were often told that there was not time or that the legislation could be combined with a Bill to privatise British Coal. I look forward to the day when British Coal is privatised, but it is no good seeking privatisation unless the foundation for it is in place. British Coal must know the rules and the laws within which it will have to work. It is absolutely essential that it should know exactly what its responsibilities will be in respect of subsidence.
It would be wrong for any legislation on subsidence to be incorporated in any other Bill on British Coal. The subsidence legislation stands on its own, as I have argued for years. I was delighted that, within a week of coming to office, the present Secretary of State for Energy told me that he agreed that there should be a separate Bill to deal with subsidence. I am delighted that we have that Bill.
I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who spoke about the need for the Bill and the balance between the Bill and jobs in British Coal. I do not seek that balance. People have rights. It is not a question of balance. It is not a question of jobs. It is


a question of rights and British Coal's duty to work to those rights. I do not seek any compromise or balance in respect of those rights. That would be wrong.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Perhaps I did not quite understand my hon. Friend. British Coal has to decide where to mine, and if the only place left to mine is under a town it will not mine there if the cost is too great and will close the colliery. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) remembers that happening to a colliery in his constituency.

Mr. Ashby: I am grateful for that clarification. In that case the situation remains as I said. British Coal will mine, subject to the law, knowing full well what the results of mining will be, and that is as it should be.

Mr. Meale: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the matter which the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) raised. In the instance he mentioned, when a colliery was closed it was suggested that its closure had been influenced by my attitude to coal mining subsidence in my constituency. Subsequently, that was proved to be totally false because none of the 35 claims which I have made on behalf of people in the area of that mine has been settled by British Coal. The hon. Member for Sherwood knows that perfectly well. Sometimes that method is used by British Coal to try to blackmail certain Members of Parliament so that they will not raise these issues on behalf of their constituents.

Mr. Ashby: Subsidence is one of the ongoing costs that British Coal has to meet. When it decides whether it can mine a certain area it has to take into account the fact that claims will be made against it and will estimate the amount and decide whether it is profitable to mine that area at that time. In 50 or 100 years time, when the price of coal has gone up, it might be profitable to do so. British Coal must mine profitably and that is decided by the time and ease of getting coal out of the ground and the ongoing costs of subsidence.
As so many hon. Members wish to speak I shall not go into the details of the Bill. We shall have time to consider them in Committee. However I must mention one or two aspects of the Bill. When it is known that an area is to be mined a notice will be sent to every household, and I am pleased, as that is essential. However, I think that that notice should include advice to the householder to have an independent survey carried out with costs borne by British Coal. So many of the wrangles that take place over the degree of damage to a property are due to the fact that no one knows what state the property was in before mining started, and a survey would resolve many disputes. If British Coal began to mine in my area and there was a high probability that my property would be damaged, I should be entitled to a free survey, paid for by British Coal.
The Bill provides that British Coal pays for the cost of the survey only if a claim is successful. However, everyone in an area where coal is to be mined should be entitled to a free survey, paid for by British Coal, as that would be cheaper in the long run and would resolve many disputes.
Another important aspect of the Bill is the six-year limit and the burden of proof, and I hope that the hon. Member for Rother Valley will consider that carefully because it is perfect as it is and should not be changed. I believe in justice and I believe that any change would result in injustice. The Bill follows common law, which is based upon years of experience that we cannot throw away. The

six-year period will come into operation only once damage becomes apparent or should reasonably have become apparent, which is virtually the same. I hope that the hon. Member for Rother Valley will not consider the six-year period on its own because the Bill also reverses the burden of proof, placing it upon British Coal. In that respect the Bill does not follow the common law, which places the burden of proof upon the claimant. Therefore, if one's property is damaged, one will put in a notice and British Coal will have to prove that damage has not occurred because of its mining. That is the most just way to deal with subsidence and will work extremely well.

Mr. Barron: Surely, if the six-year rule is changed or abolished, it does not mean that the burden of proof need change.

Mr. Ashby: If one has justice, it must be justice for all. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is too summary. British Coal is entitled to some justice, as well as claimants against it—justice must have its scales evenly balanced.
Six years is a reasonable time, especially when the burden of proof is taken into account. As a result, cases in which there was mining 20 or 40 years ago, or even at t he beginning of the century, and maps have been lost, would be on a different footing. The very fact that mining had taken place in an area coupled with the burden of proof would mean that British Coal would have to prove that subsidence had not occurred as a result of mining activities. That is a heavy burden for British Coal because it will have great difficulty in disproving it. I believe that that aspect of the Bill will help in all those difficult cases that hon. Members have experienced. That is the crux of the Bill.

Mr. Meale: When the hon. Gentleman talks about fairness and justice—which are quite different—he implies that anyone can get justice because of the time limit. That is nonsense. Even with the proposals contained in the Bill, people can get justice only if they have enough money to pursue British Coal in the courts and they cannot do that when a time limit is imposed.

Mr. Ashby: That is an unfair comment for a number of reasons. First, the Bill provides for an informed form of tribunal. Secondly, if we get together in Committee and table an amendment which grants the right of a free survey of property in mining areas it will make a big difference. Perhaps it is because I am a lawyer that I realise that the shift in the burden of proof is an overwhelming change. The fact that the burden of proof is now placed upon the mining company protects the poorest people in a way that they have never been protected before. That protection is not absolute but it cannot be lightly set aside.

Mr. Frank Haynes: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked one matter and, bearing in mind his work, representing people in court, I am surprised by that. The Minister made it clear at the beginning of the debate that British Coal would decide whether anyone had a claim. After that, people would have to go to the Secretary of State. What does the hon. Gentleman think about that aspect and how will that affect winning?

Mr. Ashby: Any action taken by the board will be subject to the law contained in the Bill, so the burden of proof will have to be shown. The board must direct itself


—and in doing so, it must ask itself whether it is unlikely, less likely, or improbable that the damage was caused by subsidence.

Mr. Allen McKay: rose—

Mr. Ashby: I have already given way on a number of occasions, and it is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to expect me to do so again. I had intended to speak only briefly, and I seem to have spoken for much longer than I planned. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can make his point in his own speech.
Other disputes have arisen out of the quality of work done in the past, which aspect the Bill also addresses. Often, British Coal employed shoddy workers to correct the effects of subsidence. In future, owners will be able to make their own choice, which should right what they view as an injustice. Presumably, owners will obtain three estimates from contractors of their own choice to satisfy British Coal.
As to the provision of alternative housing, the Bill aims at rehousing those affected in comparable accommodation. There will be no question of expecting them to live in a caravan at the bottom of the garden, because they will be entitled to housing of a like quality—in the same way as they will be entitled to a standard of workmanship that will restore their property to its previous condition, or as near to it as possible.
Owners will also be entitled to compensation for loss of value if, for example, the property develops a permanent tilt. The Bill will, and can, provide for such eventualities.
There is still some work to do on the Bill, but it is an admirable and long-sought-after measure, and is excellent in the changes that it makes in respect of the burden of proof and the qualifying time limit. I know that it will be much welcomed in my constituency.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I and my party welcome the Bill, and so will many of my constituents, but we need to know how it will affect certain categories of owners, and we want to be clear that they will have access to tribunal procedures of a kind not guaranteed under British Coal's existing voluntary arrangements. We want to be certain also that the advantage provided by the shift in the burden of proof to which the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) referred will be enjoyed by claimants. As yet, that is far from clear.
The recently introduced and, as yet, untried arbitration procedure does not meet desirable standards, not least because of restrictions on access. It also requires payment of a fairly hefty registration fee, before a claim can be pursued. The Minister must make it clear whether the Bill's enabling procedures under which he can approve a scheme will be used—and used quickly—to establish one to which all can have access without incurring unreasonable cost and a veto being placed on their access by British Coal.
Right hon. and hon. Members have received a number of representations that focus on the use of the word "may" in the Bill. They will know from their dealings with legislation over the years that that is the normal formula. It would be the same if the Minister decided, here and now, to introduce the procedures from the day that the Act

came into force. However, the same formula can be used by Ministers to delay enacting new provisions. The House needs an indication of the Government's intention in that regard.
I want to cite two cases from my constituency that illustrate the problems that can arise. They both concern properties in Swarland, near Alnwick, and illustrate how easily British Coal can get things wrong—and how unwilling it is to accept liability when it does. In both cases, the owners are pensioners—people who have reached an age at which they do not want to be worried by the prospect of substantial repairs to their property and having to encounter complicated compensation procedures.
In the first case, the pensioner concerned, having decided to purchase a property in Swarland, paid for a National Coal Board survey to determine whether any mining had been undertaken nearby. The survey clearly states: "No recorded past mining." In fact, that was nonsense—as anyone who knew the area could testify. There had been extensive mining in the area in question, from Whittle colliery.
Subsequent correspondence made it clear that the mining report was wrong. A letter I received from British Coal states:
British Coal did indeed issue a mining report on this property on 8 January 1987 stating that there was no recorded past mining. I have discussed this report with the Corporation's Group Surveyor, who issues mining reports, and it would appear that the mining report was in error. There have been coal workings to the north of the property … and to the south of the property … The property in fact sits in a pillar of coal between these two workings. The Group Surveyor informs me that all settlement from these workings would have ceased by late 1985.
That letter goes on to deny any liability on British Coal's part for damage to the property concerned. The furthest that it went by way of making amends for that error was that the writer of the letter stated:
I can only apologise on behalf of British Coal for the error in the mining report, and, with hindsight, an apology in my letter of 17 November 1990 would have been courteous.
That was the full extent of British Coal's apology for having misled a house purchaser by claiming that there had been no mining in the vicinity of the property in question. I have referred that case to the chairman of British Coal, and I hope that it can be pursued under the new arbitration procedures. However, it has yet to be made clear whether they will be adequate to deal with such cases.
I found myself dealing simultaneously with another case, involving a property in the same road—Park road, Swarland—which had subsided 14 inches as a result of mining activity. The house owner was rather late in pursuing her case, because at the time that the damage became known her husband was dying. It is understandable that, while she had to endure that miserable and traumatic experience, she could not give her attention to the subsidence affecting her property.
British Coal again denied liability for the damage, and sent that lady a plan in order to prove that her property could not be affected by subsidence. It showed, or purported to show, that her house stood on the pillar of coal between two mined areas. Not even that is conclusive proof of invulnerability, because there is extensive evidence of damage spreading at surface level on either side of mining activity, which takes the form of an angle of settlement that affects a significant adjacent area. In any


event, the plan submitted by British Coal turned out to be the plan of my other constituent's house—the house involved in the first case that I have described. British Coal had picked up the wrong plan, and sent it to one of my constituents to justify denying all liability. I should like to see that case proceed through the arbitration system.
When the Minister winds up the debate, I should like him to state how soon the arbitration procedure will be set up and whether it will be able to deal with cases of damage that occurred, or were noticed, in 1985. I should like him to say whether the arbitration procedure will be able to consider the sort of incompetence that I have just outlined.
Obviously, there are other matters that will be considered as the Bill proceeds. At some stage, perhaps the Minister will enlighten us about what will happen if there is any substantial privatisation of British Coal. I assume that all private mining activity taking place under licence from British Coal will be dealt with, under the Bill, in exactly the same way as British Coal's own mining. The district about which I am talking is now being mined under licence from British Coal, as a licensed private mine. Should any further subsidence occur, I assume that it will be treated in the same way.
The issue has caused great agitation and vexation for a long time, and it will continue to do so if the Bill's declared and publicised advantages are not properly available to those most affected and aggrieved. I have given the Minister two examples. It would be very bad if people who have suffered as my constituents have do not benefit from the Bill. They are the sort of people whose pressure, agitation and legitimate concern have formed the basis of the Bill.

Mr. Robert Hayward: Like the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I shall refer specifically to constituency cases that highlight the problems that we who represent constituencies with a history of coal mining regularly face. It is not generally remembered that Members of Parliament like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I represent former mining constituencies. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment also represents a district that has been partly mined. At various times, 95 per cent. of my constituency has been mined, and problems associated with coal mining subsidence are common.
The two cases that I wish to raise, and by which I believe the Bill will be judged by myself and hon. Members with constituencies close to the eastern Avon district, are fairly typical. They stem from the fact that, unlike the constituencies of many of the hon. Members who have already spoken, they occurred in districts where coal mining ceased 20 or 30 years ago. In many of the cases, the mining records are not readily available. The first problem facing any constituent is the long-drawn-out process of trying to establish whether the subsidence or cracking has anything to do with a coal mine. The arguments go round and round, and backwards and forwards, between the local council, the water board and British Coal.
The number of cases of subsidence that I, as a Member of Parliament, face has increased in the past year or so. I do not believe that is because people are becoming more money-oriented. People I meet in the street, who understand the problem much better than I do, say that the substantially dry summers in recent years have altered

the balance of the land. In addition, in my constituency —this may be true in the constituencies of many other hon. Members—there has been substantial infilling and development. The infilling causes problems that are supposed to be related to watercourses. When infilling takes place over former mine shafts, it alters the watercourses and the flow of the water table, so it impacts on other constituents' properties.
I have constituents in Woodyleaze drive, Hanham, who, at the height of last summer, had lawns like bogs, on which Professor Bellamy would have been pleased to walk. In what was supposed to be the driest year for many a decade, we could stand on the lawn and sway from side to side. We took buckets full of water out of the trenches, which filled up immediately. After many months of study of that case, the latest information is that water is coming from two different sources, one of which is—it was disclosed last week—former coal mines. That information has been made available after a long period of research by all the experts in the district.
The constituents have to deal with a Coal Board office that was previously in south Wales, but is now in Derbyshire. The office was moved to Derbyshire because of the decline in coal mining in south Wales. I think that the constituents of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) may face the same problem. It adds to the complications and drawn-out process that constituents face.
At present, the residents of one of the houses, Mr. and Mrs. Hann, are pursuing their case with great determination, but as yet none of the neighbours has filed a claim. However, it is likely that, when the Hanns' case is resolved, other neighbours may have cause to file claims. I should like the Minister to clarify whether that period will form part of the six years. Do the six years start from the time at which the Hanns started pursuing their case or when damage began to be apparent in the neighbours' houses, as it is likely to be? With respect to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), I accept that the burden of proof has changed, but it is important to make clear at what point the six years will start.
The second case is located at the opposite end of my constituency, where residents of Stanley Park road have just started to face problems associated with subsidence. At present, the resident in 9 Stanley Park road believes that the subsidence is being caused by mining. The mine shafts appear to be on a vacant property where Nos. 3 and 5 would be. But there is substantial argument about whether a ventilation shaft, mine shaft or some other form of previous working is causing the subsidence. The resident at No. 7 has not yet identified any damage to his property that has been caused by the subsidence.
If the resident at No. 7 were to suffer subsidence later, would the six-year period start from the date at which the resident at No. 9 identified the subsidence? It is believed that the property at No. 7 is moving slightly and causing difficulties with other properties. Or does the six-year period start from the date at which any damage becomes obvious at No.7? That is a particularly important aspect, because the cases may involve pensioners who may not be specifically interested in the problem to begin with, due to other family reasons or their own nature, and do not wish to register the problem at that stage.
Would a developer of the site of Nos. 5 and 3 Stanley Park road, currently pursing an argument with British


Coal about whether there is subsidence caused by previous mine workings, have the right to claim compensation because of the extra work that he will have to do on a property which was not previously identified as standing on mine workings? As a result of the expert efforts of Mr. Cornwell and some of his colleagues, it has been established that workings had probably been there before; however, when the developer bought the site on which he wished to build flats, it was not evident from any map available to the Coal Board that such workings were present.
Wherever coal workings have previously arisen, our constituents will face difficulties. I think that, in principle, the Bill is going in the right direction, but before I can support it my constituents and I would like certain points to be clarified.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: In his concluding remarks, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) drew attention to the balance that has had to be struck between the needs of a mining community that faces various problems and the needs of an industry that generates jobs. I understood the point that he was making and the dilemmas that he described; they allow me, briefly at least, to present the Bill in the context of the south Wales mining industry.
It is a gloomy, nostalgic reflection that this could be one of the last debates on a Bill about coal mining in which any Welsh Member can claim that he represents a coal-producing community. Astonishingly, the House now contains only four Welsh Members who fall into that category. At one time, the industry provided more than 200,000 jobs in the south Wales coal field, and produced more than 200,000 tonnes of coal; now we are down to 2,000 jobs and about 2,000 tonnes of deep-mined coal. Since 1985, the number of jobs has fallen from 27,000 to 2,000.
Along with that has come a sea change in attitudes to jobs and industry. The Bill reminds us of the high price that has had to be paid for the vital requirements of the coal industry—the health of the mining communities, for instance. In my community, pits have closed and jobs have disappeared, but there is still a generation of pneumoconiotic miners. Safety has also helped to pay the price: I need say no more than that I represent the pit village of Aberfan. The environment, too, has suffered: generations of communities have put up with tip waste, noise, nuisance, dust and, indeed, subsidence to preserve jobs and allow them to be created so that the industry can survive.
At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) described, quite effectively, the attitudes of the mining communities to British Coal. He said that they were relaxed, but I think that that is the wrong word: they were, rather, ambivalent about the dilemmas involved in relation to jobs and the development of industry, as against the impact that such development would have on them. There was a reason for that. For generations, communities such as the one that I am proud to represent put up with so much because they had what the Government may see as a rather cockeyed view of economics: they actually believed that the physical

economy was important. They felt that making things—producing things; extracting valuable physical assets—constituted a worthwhile, important contribution to the nation's wealth. Those attitudes are changing; they have, in any event, been changed by the closure of pits and the destruction of jobs.
A couple of weeks ago, I attended a meeting in Edwardsville, Treharris, in my local community. The meeting was packed to overflowing: householders were standing out in the street. That meeting was about the serious subsidence problem in the area. After the meeting, some of us wondered how, in the 1990s, British Coal would ever obtain permission to sink a deep mine of any kind or conduct any form of extraction in such a village—or, indeed, any other village. That pit was sunk more than 100 years ago. Does any hon. Member on either side of the House believe that any such proposal would not provoke a massive residential reaction?
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West spoke about the shifting burden of proof and the rights in the Bill. One right remains unchallengeable, because British Coal now and in the future will have an absolute and total right to undermine pit communities, villages and homes, and that right will probably have to remain. It will be amazing if in the 1990s British Coal receives permission for works that will lead to the continuation of the undermining of communities and neighbourhoods.
It is important to recall the nature and character of the industry which in my community is down to one pit. I spoke about the community of Edwardsville, Treharris, where subsidence has affected not only homes but the swimming pool and the local school. That is just a mile and half from our valley. One can imagine the feelings and worries of residents in that area. The problems will now be lessened because British Coal has suddenly decided to close the deep navigation pit in Treharris. However, after the pit is closed the problems will remain.
As many hon. Members have said, subsidence does not go away when British Coal goes away and the pit closes. The communities that I have described and to which I belong are not yuppie communities. Basically, they consist of two generations of home owners. Many members of the older generation worked in the industry or have strong connections with it. Those people are proud of their homes and have transformed them through repair and improvement grants. Those terraced houses in which they live have been transformed into valuable and precious homes.
The younger generation live in properties which form the first rung on the ladder of home ownership. By south-east standards their mortgages are small, but they are significant in relation to the small incomes and they are often linked to improvement loans. We must judge the value of the Bill in the light of the worries expressed at the meeting that I have mentioned.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West seemed to find the Bill dramatic, as if it were some fantastic shift in power from British Coal to the individual. I do not think that the balance has shifted in that way. If in the past it has been a David and Goliath battle, I take comfort from the fact that David always won. However, in many respects the battle is unequal. Up to a point I welcome the six-year rule as defined by the Minister. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron),


I wonder why we have to have a six-year limit anyway if the idea is that at any time damage emerges a home owner will be able to make a claim.
The Bill does not address what happens when subsidence occurs. Some hon. Members have spoken about the problem of blight. I quarrel in one respect with the otherwise excellent report by the Select Committee on Energy and therefore quarrel with the Bill in one fundamental respect. The Select Committee backed the Waddilove committee view about blight by saying that mining was no different from any other form of development. There is a case for arguing that subsidence is different in character from the problems arising from other developments in that it raises particular difficulties about borrowing money to buy and about selling homes. Those problems arise as soon as word gets around and the matter becomes public. It is not simply about loss of view or noise which can occur with other forms of development. The problem is insidious and unnerving. It undermines—sorry about the pun—confidence in one's property. There is a very strong case for including in the Bill some additional provision to take care of blight.
I hope that in Committee the Minister will take a positive view. Indeed, he may be forced to do so, as there are the makings—one sees the danger signs—of cross-party agreement on some aspects of the changes. Certainly, there is a need to examine the whole question of how claims will be dealt with when disputes arise. In saying so, I am referring not only to clause 41. I interrupted the Minister when he failed to describe clause 4. Let me tell hon. Members why. It appears that when British Coal responds to the initial notice of damage it will not have to seek agreement on the nature of works that have to be carried out. If I am wrong, the Minister will correct me —or perhaps the matter can be dealt with in Committee. When there is a dispute, even the schedules of remedial action will have to go to the Lands Tribunal.
It is 25 years since I was first elected to the House. During my first Parliament we passed the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. That, too, was a matter of great concern. Disputes under that legislation had to go to the Lands Tribunal. The tribunal is no informal, gentle, inexpensive institution. We ought to look at the character and nature of the disputes that arise; otherwise the change in the balance to which the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West referred will not amount to a right that can easily be exercised by the individual home owner.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) made a very forceful point about the destruction of records. Surely, given the disputes that have arisen—case after case has been mentioned in the House—an obligation should forthwith be placed on British Coal not to destroy plans or records. British Coal ought to be obliged to deposit such plans and records, not only because of their historical interest and archival value to the coal industry, but because of their practical value in the resolution of any disputes or claims that might arise in cases of subsidence. It is essential that Ministers come to the Standing Committee in the most, positive possible frame of mind. In the case of the Broadcasting Act 1990, chunks of the legislation were written in Committee. I hope that Ministers will approach this Bill in the same way. Their approach must not be dampened or otherwise controlled by the hidden hand of British Coal. British Coal must not have any hidden veto.
As I said earlier, it is very sad that, in some ways, the responsibilities of British Coal, in respect of subsidence in my area, will become historic rather than current arid future. In that context, I want to convey a final message to that very powerful organisation. For generations, our communities have suffered from subsidence and large-scale tip waste. Now, through reclamation—and, it appears, pit closures—subsidence will become a historic problem. I hope that we shall not simply swap the historic problem of subsidence for a new form of desecration by British Coal. I hope that British Coal, having destroyed our jobs, will not return to gouge out our hillsides by way of open-casting. I may have to spend the rest of this Parliament trying to make this a better Bill; I hope that I shall not have to spend the next Parliament dealing with an "Open Cast Amelioration Bill". Economic forces beyond the control of my community have destroyed jobs and will eventually make subsidence a historic problem there. I hope that, at last, we can look forward to a green and pleasant society such as others seem to enjoy.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who has a number of friends in my constituency. He spoke eloquently of the changes that have been taking place in his historic constituency, changes that have affected my constituency over a longer period, so that he is coming to terms with the circumstances with which we were forced to come to terms a little earlier. I wish only that I could add to those matters that we have in common the size of his majority, which I believe is 28,000 which exceeds that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We are working on it in my constituency and I hope eventually to share such a majority.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of interesting points. He was right to draw attention to the difficulties of the extractive industries in the United Kingdom, particularly the coal industry, which will soon face many problems in winning coal. The effects of mining activity are felt long after it has taken place. The compensation that the Bill will provide is one of those costs. Some of my hon. Friends have already pointed out that it is no different from any other industry in this respect. For example, in the nuclear industry, decommissioning is a major financial burden. We have to accept that the cost of subsidence is like any other cost such as that for machinery, wages or interest on borrowing. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) made that point.
The Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen will have to come to terms with this cost. While we welcome the Bill, I feel that we should flag it with the cautionary remark that if the Bill imposes even greater burdens on the coal industry, which will push up the price of coal, we must accept that consequence of the Bill, which I expect will be enacted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West also made the valid point that, in the past, mining subsidence was accepted because the people whose houses were affected invariably were employed in the coal industry or members of their family were employed in the industry. To a certain extent, it was a case of grin and bear


it, even where that was because people felt intimidated and thought that the employer might take it out on them if they sought remedies for the injustice.
However, the situation is different today. The people with whom we are in touch in our constituencies and who are affected by mining subsidence are no longer connected with the coal industry. They are not employed in it and if any members of their family have any connections, it is usually the elderly relatives who used to be employed in it. That factor highlights the problem.
While nearly all hon. Members present in the Chamber have direct experience of these problems, many others do not. I was intrigued to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) say that his constituency had a coal mining problem. I suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were also not aware of that, even though you represent a nearby constituency. Many hon. Members do not understand what we are talking about.

Mr. Jim Lester: One of the points about opening the channel tunnel and developing the railway to it something that will benefit our constituents in the midlands and the north—is that it has provoked in the south-east a great deal of understanding about environmental damage.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. I wish only that some of our hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Kent were able to make that connection. They are not able to do so when they object to things taking place in the lovely lush green pastures of their constituencies, although they think that it is fine for the grotty old midlands to put up with yet more despoliation so that they can enjoy those green fields. It is time that they considered what their fair share of the burden is.
It is hard for some people to appreciate the distress that mining subsidence causes. Not only does it devalue property—which, for most of us, constitutes the largest investment of our lifetime—but attempts to seek a remedy and justice are accompanied by incessant wrangling. There is even danger to life. I have experienced all these problems, and I have referred to them in the House on previous occasions. That being so, I shall not go into great detail this evening. I shall merely mention that properties in Church hill and Hednesford in my constituency have been racked by the problem for many years. Some hon. Members may remember the church that had to be pulled down. British Coal paid nearly £250,000 for the building of a new church. The bottom fell out of a working men's club, and British Coal paid for that to be replaced. Home owners, however, were told that there was no evidence of coal mining activity and that therefore the responsibility was not that of British Coal. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that British Coal, following my representations, has relented and now agrees to accept some degree of liability, although that has not yet been quantified.
I hope that British Coal, in its apparent act of magnanimity and generosity in accepting liability, will not struggle and prevaricate. I hope that it will be decent and honourable. The Bill's provisions will not apply to my constituents because their claims are now being dealt with. I hope also that a pre-emptive strike was not made by

British Coal to sort out the problem under the old arrangements before the new arrangements come into effect.
I welcome the Bill. As the former Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Minister with responsibilities for the coal industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), I pay my tribute to him for the part which he played during the time that I was his PPS at the Department of Energy to bring the Bill into the legislative programme. As some of my hon. Friends know, we PPSs are the important guys in these matters. I know, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South was extremely interested in the matters that are taken up in the Bill and conscious of the concerns that were expressed by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock) and for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and by various constituents, who tried to bring matters to a successful conclusion. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has brought the Bill before the House.
I am sure that the determination that has been shown by the Government over the past three or four years has cajoled British Coal into accepting some of the Waddilove recommendations, such as prior notification and the new arbitration scheme, which started life in the past month. If the Government had not said that it was their firm intention to bring the Bill before the House, I do not believe that British Coal would have taken any action. It was the threat, as it were, of legislative action that prompted it to take action.
It is fair to say that hon. Members on both sides of the House have campaigned. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) did not mention that many of my hon. Friends, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, have been battling hard. It is a cross-party matter that affects all our constituents whichever way they vote.
The benefits of the Bill will be considerable and many of them have been alluded to already. There are five, however, that I wish to single out. First, unlike the 1975 legislation, which was introduced by the then Labour Government, this proposed legislation will impose the burden of proof upon British Coal to show that the damage done was not caused by mining subsidence. I am told by geologists in the United Kingdom that there is no such thing as natural movement in the earth's crust. We do not have a San Andreas fault in the United Kingdom. It is legitimate to presuppose that if subsidence has taken place, it is on account of extraction taking place under ground. We are not being unfair to British Coal in imposing the burden of proof upon it.
Secondly, it is extremely good news that repairs will be made to claimants' reasonable satisfaction. Thirdly, the right of claimants to have repairs carried out by their own contractors will be warmly welcomed by constituents who are affected by subsidence. Fourthly, the right to recover expenses will be welcomed. Fifthly—this point has not been made—clause 9(3) provides for local authorities to receive full reimbursement for the work that they carry out for example, to the public highway. That will be of much interest to Cannock Chase district council, because its £30,000 bill for reinstating the road at Church hill is the subject of prevarication by British Coal, which wants to foot only 50 per cent. of the cost. I hope that it will show goodwill in anticipation of the enactment of the Bill.
Detailed points will be addressed in Committee. Hon. Members have referred to some of them, but I shall make two specific points. Clause 4 provides for British Coal to respond to a damage notice.
as soon as reasonably practicable".
All hon. Members agree that the delays in claims for mining subsidence compensation are a major problem. British Coal should be required to respond to a damage notice within a specific time. I hope that that will be dealt with in Committee.

Dr. Woodcock: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that the Bill imposes specific time limits, not on British Coal but on claimants? As my hon. Friend said, the phrase "within a reasonable time" is mentioned several times, but a claimant has only 28 days in which to respond to a schedule served by British Coal. Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not seem to be reasonable?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes a fair point which will have to be considered in Committee. I hope that I can be allowed a wry smile about the concept of reasonableness. I introduced a Bill to change the law on obscenity, which introduced the concept of reasonableness. I was told that it could not pass into law because the test of reasonableness was not precise enough. I am interested to see that the Bill is littered with references to reasonableness. I have always found that a difficult concept to apply to British Coal.
Hon. Members mentioned information on previous subsidence claims. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider that point, because prospective purchasers of a property should be aware of its subsidence history. Such a proposal could be bad news for owners of such property who have their houses properly and completely restored, only to find that people do not want to buy them simply because of that subsidence history.
Arbitration has been mentioned. I note that my hon. Friend the Minister is anxious to allow British Coal's voluntary arrangements to operate. The whole House will agree that the jury is out on those arrangements. We shall want to see substantial progress and that the voluntary system is working, otherwise we shall want other measures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who unfortunately cannot be present because he is chairing a committee, is concerned about coal mining subsidence and the obligation to repurchase. I have told British Coal that it would save itself hassle if it agreed to repurchase property, do it up and sell it to a prospective purchaser, without any liability attaching thereto and in the full knowledge that the property has been subject to subsidence damage but has been repaired. It occasionally repurchases properties, and I am aware of one instance where it did so. However, that is very much the exception rather than the rule. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may like to consider whether the arbitrators can suggest obligatory repurchase.
The Bill is an excellent start to remedy an injustice which affects many constituencies. The Government are to be congratulated on introducing such a welcome measure. The history of the issue is testimony to the stubborn foot-dragging of the nationalised British Coal over many years. Bit by bit, no doubt encouraged by the prospect of the Bill, British Coal has had wrung out of it a series of voluntary improvements. Some of the remedies will be

enshrined in law by the Bill, but in many respects, particularly on the issue of arbitration, our constituents will remain at the mercy of British Coal's good faith. Speed and fairness are of the essence. Our constituents must be left in no doubt that, if British Coal fails to display that good will, a statutory scheme will be enacted.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Like many hon. Members over the years, I have spoken about the problems of people suffering from mining subsidence. I welcome the Bill and, as a member of the Energy Select Committee, the fact that it arises out of that Committee's report. The Bill is long overdue. I do not intend to cover ground which has been covered already, but I believe that there are some points that should be considered in Committee. If ever there were a Bill that is a Committee Bill, it is this one.
It is right that I should declare an interest—my home is getting a hammering because of mining subsidence. I am worried about the historic costs. Following the Select Committee's recommendations, the Bill states that charges should be levied at individual pits. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), there is one pit left in my constituency—in 1985, there were eight. Which pit will bear the costs of the seven that have closed? If we stick rigidly to the Bill's provisions, where will the money come from to pay for subsidence damage caused by the closed pits?
It could be argued in a tight mining community such as mine, with eight pits, that some of the subsidence was caused by the one pit still operating. The costs imposed on that pit might be so excessive that it could become unprofitable, and we would lose the pit. There must be strict records and strict administration to find out whether all the subsidence results from the one pit that now operates.
Blight is a major problem and the cost of full compensation for it would be colossal. It is no good running away from that fact, but that does not make matters any easier for those living in the areas. I am sure that many other hon. Members who represent mining areas will know of estates where some houses have subsidence problems and others display no visible signs of damage. The moment subsidence is identified, however, the value of all the properties goes downhill; in some cases, they become unmarketable. Redundant miners often have to move to another part of the country to get a job and even if their property has not been damaged it can be an impossible task to sell it. British Coal is sympathetic and sometimes tries to help in some cases, but not always.
We must also consider the problem of tilt. In one avenue in my constituency, British Coal has purchased three or four houses suffering from subsidence damage but has decided not to buy a couple of properties that have been left with tilt. British Coal has put the properties that it has purchased on the market, with advertisements in the local press and in the local estate agents' offices saying that it is offering the houses for £10,0000, £12,000 or £13,000 because they have been damaged by subsidence.
Two unfortunate constituents of mine who live in one of the other houses, which is suffering from shocking tilt, were initially offered £2,500—later upped to £3,500—in compensation. In other words, although British Coal admits that the value of the houses that it has purchased


is only £10,000 to £12,000, it is offering my constituents only about £3,000 in respect of properties that would have fetched £40,000 had they not been damaged. I hope that the Bill will protect those people.
Clause 11 says:
the Corporation shall make in respect of the dwelling-house a payment equal to the amount of the depreciation in the value of the dwelling-house caused by the damage.
I have no general complaints about the administration of the subsidence department in my area. The people who work there do their level best to meet their obligations. Nevertheless, the examples that I have given show that great problems remain for the victims of mining subsidence.
I welcome the establishment of advice centres. When, on a number of occasions, I visited Nottingham with members of the Select Committee on Energy, I found out that there is a real need for advice. I should like the advice centres to be staffed by professional advisers. Many people in Nottingham received no advice, or advice from agents who were far from honest; I understand that some of the agents have faced criminal charges. Professional advisers would not have been able to act in that way. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider that question in Committee.
Let me make a proposal which I believe would go some way towards solving the problems of blight and of excessive damage to some properties. It has always amazed me that British Coal—and, before it, the National Coal Board—could not get down to the problem at the planning stage and say to local authorities, "There may well be subsidence damage in this area."
It should be part of planning consents that houses in some areas should have been built on rafts, at a cost of about £2,000. That would have saved British Coal a great deal of money in having to purchase property, demolish houses or repair them. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the local authority planning departments and British Coal could have worked together to provide new properties with rafts. That would have eliminated many of the problems that have arisen.

Mr. Jim Lester: We invented the Clasp building system in Nottinghamshire to build schools, hospitals and public buildings on rafts that allow movement because our area suffers from subsidence. That system has been valuable in this country and also in areas that suffer from earthquakes.

Mr. Lofthouse: There must be consultation with the planning authorities and I hope that British Coal will get round to that. I am sure that such consultation would be beneficial in those mining areas.
We all recognise that the major problem is going to diminish because the number of pits mining coal is going to decline. If Mr. Baker, the chairman of National Power, carries out his threat to import 50 per cent. of the fuel to generate electricity for National Power, there will be another rapid rundown of the mining industry. If British Coal can take precautionary measures before building houses, that would be a step in the right direction.
The Select Committee on Energy can be well pleased with the main aspects of the Bill because it contains much that the Select Committee recommended. Hon. Members have grumbled in the past, as I have, that we put a lot of work into Select Committees, but no one seems to take any

notice. However, we cannot say that on this occasion, because the work of the Select Committee on Energy is evident in the Bill.
I hope that the Standing Committee will be able to improve the Bill. I hope that that will benefit the country, and especially Nottingham and Mansfield, where there is a major problem with subsidence. I know from my visits to Mansfield of the colossal amount of work that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has done on this problem over the past few years and he should be congratulated on that work. I hope that the Committee will be able to approve many amendments to improve the Bill, which is only a step in the right direction.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: May I first declare an indirect interest in the subject through my association with Alliance International which looks after British Coal affairs. However, my primary and overriding interest lies with my constituents. Although I no longer have any active pits in my constituency, I can assure hon. Members that the impact of subsidence continues and I am delighted that it seems that we are about to resolve the problem with the Bill.
The Bill has been long in gestation, but now that we are debating it I am glad that it has been largely welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is the product of fairly objective discussions that have taken place over many years with many different groups. It has been backed across the party divide. The mild chastisement of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) was an understatement, because the hon. Gentleman gave a most ungenerous welcome to a Bill for which we have all waited for a long time.
I am sure that British Coal does not agree with everything in the Bill. However, we should be fair and, to its credit, British Coal produced the householders arbitration scheme in conjunction with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Notwithstanding the scheme that it produced, British Coal welcomes the Bill as a blueprint for a system that it and hon. Members will find will work in practice and not just be words on the statute book.
One criticism might be that much is implied in the Bill that some would wish be made more explicit. No doubt hon. Members will probe that point in Committee.
On an initial reading of the Bill and of the background papers, the Bill appears to represent a balanced approach between the interests of householders, service interests, and the legitimate interests of mining operators. I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) dismissed a sense of balance in these matters. Although, naturally, all of us are much more concerned with the impact of subsidence on the individual householder—the little man facing big brother, British Coal—there must be a balance and justice on both sides.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: The hon. Gentleman talks about the imbalance between big brother, British Coal and the householder, but he ignores one major factor —the insurance companies. For many years, insurance companies have been taking a large amount of money in premiums off everyone who buys a house, yet they refuse to pay out for subsidence, or they insert a small clause that limits them to perhaps 10 per cent. of the cost. The Bill


does not refer to insurance companies having any responsibility. Surely the third factor should be involved. Insurance companies have made a great profit without paying anything out.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He was not present to hear the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's intervention is out of context and away from the main point. I am perfectly happy for that matter to be discussed in Committee. Like many other hon. Members, I have come across that aspect.
Another criticism might be the uncertainty in establishing the full extent of repairs that are needed and the extent to which British Coal would be expected to pay. That is not an unreasonable concern for any householder, but I do not believe that the Bill is anything more than a sensible recognition of British Coal's duty to take action —clause 2—prepare a schedule of work—clause 6—and, to put it simply, get on with it—clause 7—to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant. The agreed schedule arising from the notice and its acceptance will cover only damage that it is reasonably practicable to repair.
Nevertheless, the kinds of remedial action listed in clause 2(2) can in some instances be cumulative. It is surely implicit that British Coal could take one or more of the options listed in clause 2(2). For example, it is not uncommon for British Coal to repair damage other than, say, the residual tilt to a property, to which my hon. Friend the Minister and one or two other hon. Members referred, and then make a depreciation payment for the residual tilt that cannot be repaired. Therefore, the mining operator would meet its obligation under clause 2(2)(c).
Clause 11(3) provides the claimant with protection where remedial works have been executed, but where there is clear depreciation in the value of the property and where the making good of the damage simply is not possible—hence a depreciation payment. I can imagine lawyers' eyes lighting up at that—it is bread and meat to them—but I cannot imagine any other way of resolving that problem. Like the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), I have properties in my constituency that have been repaired but are clearly not 100 per cent. right—there is a tilt to them. Any buyer looking at such a house would consider that fact. There is no doubt that the value of such houses has diminished because they are on a slight tilt.

Mr. Jim Lester: Just a slight tilt?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) has an example of a 5 in tilt, which is a big tilt. I have not had cases of that much tilt, but take his point.
There have been arguments and misunderstandings tonight about the six-year rule. Provided that it does not disqualify a claimant from claiming for subsequent damage following completion of an agreed schedule of work, the six-year rule seems fair. It is tied not to the date on which the damage occurred but to the first date on which the person entitled to claim became aware of the damage. That concept has already been established in housing legislation. I am not sure which housing Bill made it clear, but claims do not have to go back to when the person bought the house; the clock begins to run when the

person who bought the house from the local council discovered the defect or, in this case, the subsidence damage.
If the parties agree that it would be sensible to allow some time to pass, perhaps to establish the full extent of the damage, that could be allowed. I am not an engineer and perhaps people want the matter to be settled and finalised, but at least the full extent of the damage could be established. I have visited houses where a modicum of repair had been carried out by the coal board, but two years later a crack has appeared in the bathroom. That is plastered over, but a year later a crack appears in the kitchen. I hope that a mechanism can be created which will allow a sensible time to establish whether the contractor, British Coal, or whoever is carrying out the repair, has done the full work necessary. I hope that that principle will not be undermined by the six-year rule.

Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Gentleman refers to temporary repairs. It all depends on how severe the subsidence is. It would be inadequate to ask people to live in poor conditions without remedial work being done.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I have no reason to doubt the hon. Gentleman. I merely wish to illustrate that when someone sees a crack and correctly notifies British Coal instantly, which then mends only the crack, major problems may not be identified because in a sense they were tackled too quickly.
Again, I seek guidance. If a schedule is agreed and fulfilled and further subsidence occurs, will the claimant be deemed to be making a fresh claim that should stand on its own merit, regardless of any earlier repairs? That arises time and time again in Wollaton in Nottingham. The pit there closed in 1966. That is a long time ago and the answer comes back from British Coal that mining ended in 1966 so it cannot be the cause of the subsidence. People who had repairs done in the 1970s and early 1980s were told that the damage could not have been caused by mining subsidence because mining stopped in 1966. That again raises a question about whether the repairs were fully carried out in the first place, perhaps in the early 1980s.
As has been said, British Coal has already established an arbitration scheme for claims in respect of domestic properties. It is intended to apply to cases where no complex issues of fact or law arise. I am afraid that my legal friends on both the Conservative and Opposition Benches will always be involved when more complex matters arise, which involve evidence, hearings and so on. The long-established Lands Tribunal is well able to deal with such cases, so no new organisation is needed. While the arbitration scheme should meet the needs of most claimants, I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that we do not end up with an unduly bureaucratic system.
I have one word of caution. It arises from one of the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Rother Valley, which was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, about a person who accepts money to do his own repairs or employs his own contractor.
I remember problems with housing repairs and improvements grants, when local authorities paid money to residents to pay a contractor and somewhat shoddy work was done by unapproved builders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe says, if someone agrees a schedule of work with British Coal—under the


provisions in the Bill—says that he wants to do the work himself and takes the money to do it, in the interests of equity British Coal cannot then be asked to accept responsibility if the work turns out to be unsatisfactory in the future. There could be arguments about whether cracks that reappear are due to fresh subsidence or bad workmanship. By all means let that provision remain in the Bill, but I urge caution on anyone who wants to take that risk.
The Bill is fairly technical, even though it is short. Perhaps it will be a lawyers' paradise, as such Bills often are, but, at long last, it provides some certainty for our householders. They have suffered fear and worry for many years: fear of how far damage to their homes might go: fear that they could not afford repairs if they found that they were not covered by the coal board; and, worst of all, fear that they would never be able to sell the property and move on. I know of a number of pensioner couples who would dearly love to sell their homes and buy something smaller. They feel as if they are locked in a house with cracks, which they know they will not be able to sell for its full value.
The Bill is not everything that we might wish for, but there was no reason for the ungenerous—even mealy-mouthed—acceptance which the hon. Member for Rother Valley gave it.

Mr. Eric Illsley: I welcome the Bill in much the same way that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) welcomed it. The measure is long overdue and there is much within the Bill that we like, but there is also much that we would like to be clarified and perhaps improved, and I do not think that my hon. Friend's welcome to the Bill was mealy-mouthed.
I welcome the Bill as a Member of Parliament representing a coalfield area, who receives numerous complaints about subsidence, and as a member of the Select Committee on Energy, which considered mining subsidence in considerable detail last year and produced a detailed report. Many of our recommendations have been taken on board by the Government. The fact remains that too much of the Bill gives British Coal the last word or the final decision, and Opposition Members would like an improvement to those aspects of the Bill.
I have received serious complaints from constituents and I shall refer to some of them instead of the mechanics of the Bill. I hope that some of these issues will be tackled, clarified and thrashed out in Committee. Tonight, we have learnt that considerable confusion surrounds the time limits which have been imposed in the past. These limits are clearly set out in the Bill, but there have been occasions when British Coal has used quite a different time limit from that which existed under the law. Liability has been denied in certain cases because of the time that elapsed between mining activities and the date of the claim. The Bill specifies a time limit of six years from the time when a claimant should have reasonable knowledge of damage. Under previous legislation, two months were allowed to submit a claim.
Reference was made to the evidence taken by the Energy Select Committee in Mansfield. On that occasion, two members of the coal board giving evidence the same day clearly did not understand—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Chapman.]

Question again proposed,That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Illsley: I was making the point that even British Coal's own representatives did not appear to understand the time limits, believing that the relevant period was that which elapsed between the ending of mining activities and the claim. British Coal can always use the defence that damage was not caused by mining subsidence, because the workings of a particular colliery would have settled some time before, and that some other factor must be to blame.
The Waddilove committee recommended that there should be no time limit, arguing that every case should be considered on its merits, and that if mining subsidence was to blame, then the claim should be met. The time limit applies only from the time that the damage occurred, not from the date of mining.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) said that the Bill's time limits are exactly right, but each claim should surely be considered in its own right. When a person notices damage, he will usually notify British Coal immediately. It will appraise the damage in relation to the area, and consult its plans and records, in determining whether the damage is a consequence of mining. British Coal may go back well beyond six years. As the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West knows from his own professional activities, the time limit only relates to an individual prevaricating about issuing a notice after damage has become apparent. It is designed to deter an individual from staring at a crack in his wall for six years before submitting a claim.
Even if British Coal can prove that damage has not been caused by subsidence, it might have to check back on workings over the past century. The appropriateness of a six-year time limit will no doubt be explored in Committee, together with Waddilove's recommendations that none should exist.
Delay is also of major concern. I refer not to delayed claims, but to delay on the part of British Coal in undertaking repairs, with house owners having to wait years in some cases before work is completed. I refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). If British Coal believes that there is a risk of further damage, it will issue a stop notice to prevent any repairs being made—unless of an emergency nature—until such time as it is clear that no additional damage will arise. That can lead to houses and even whole estates being left for years before British Coal effects any repairs. I know of one claimant who was re-housed in transit accommodation, pending repairs to his own property, three years ago.
The alternative accommodation offered by British Coal is usually of a high standard and quite acceptable. I have experienced no problems or complaints about the standard of transit accommodation, simply about the length of time that people have to be re-housed away from their homes waiting for repairs to be carried out. The lack of transit accommodation to a suitable standard often


causes problems because there are insufficient transit houses to accommodate people while repairs are carried out.

Mr. Ashby: The Bill states that a person can have repairs done himself, and therefore push British Coal aside.

Mr. Illsley: It is a welcome aspect of the Bill that claimants can now choose between waiting for British Coal or employing contractors of their own. I hope that that will go some way towards alleviating the delays experienced by my constituents. One street in my constituency has been totally demolished—about six or seven bungalows have been taken down and completely rebuilt. The delays in completing the work were considerable. In the heavily-mined constituencies of most hon. Members present, many claims are pending from people whose properties have suffered significant damage. There is a conflict between the ideas proposed by Waddilove. He believed that the emphasis should be placed on repairs rather than awarding a claimant money to carry out repairs or hire a contractor, which might lead to some claimants looking at the damage, deciding they can live with it and spending the money on something else. We should all want to avoid that because we want to maintain the housing stock and ensure that the compensation system for mining subsidence is genuine, repairs are carried out and there is no malpractice.
With respect to standards of repair, my constituents have sent me photographs time and again of the evidence of subsidence and I have been asked to visit properties to look at the standard of repairs carried out by British Coal or contractors employed by it. In many cases it is quite appalling. In the old days, British Coal had estates departments, with qualified workmen responsible for maintaining British Coal's housing stock and carrying out subsidence repairs. Their standards were quite high, but some of the standards of repair that I have seen in the past couple of years are not entirely adequate. The standard laid down in the Bill is
to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant.
I hope that that provision will ease those problems.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South mentioned repeat claims. Having allowed for the appropriate stop notices and time limits, a claimant often submits a repeat claim for damage to that which has already been repaired. British Coal says that the damage is often due to the movement of the new plasterwork or the settling-in of new window frames. It is obvious that, in the absence of any other subsidence or factor, the damage must have been caused by mining subsidence not settling down properly or the same place being affected again.
With regard to the determination of claims, as many other hon. Members have said, the problem lies with British Coal, which is judge and jury in all matters.
British Coal has all the information relating to mining in the district, which is obviously one of the reasons why the onus of proof has been put on British Coal. In most cases it has the plans, although in some cases it has no records of where mining has occurred. As it usually has all the details, it is in a better position than the claimant to determine a claim. The final decision rests with British Coal and it is difficult for a claimant faced with British Coal to dispute its plans, information or what its mining surveyor says.
British Coal is also the final arbiter when it comes to the level of damage. It has set standards relating to tilt, a problem that several hon. Members have mentioned: it can be as much as 5 ins. When a case is on the borderline, it can mean the difference between a compensation payment, the floors of the building being jacked and the property being knocked down and completely rebuilt. In properties in my constituency, claimants have rolled a billiard ball from one corner to another, and seen the tilts and twists. It is a bit like walking into the fun house in Blackpool, where the staircase goes sideways.
Few cases go to the Lands Tribunal. The Select Committee found that, in 1987–88, 33 claims were taken to the tribunal, 31 were withdrawn and two were settled by British Coal beforehand. That is a weakness in the Bill which many hon. Members have pointed out. British Coal may present an arbitration scheme—over and above its current scheme, that is—but we have not been told how good such a scheme would be. Many hon. Members have already pointed out that the existing scheme is not good enough, because British Coal's permission is required before a claimant can take advantage of it. Another disadvantage is the imposition of a £50 charge before a case can go to arbitration.

Mr. Barron: Plus VAT.

Mr. Illsley: That may not sound much when repairs costing thousands of pounds are needed to a property, but it presents rather an obstacle to those in receipt of low incomes and benefits.
I welcome the appointment of an adjudicator. The Select Committee report recommended the appointment of some kind of ombudsman, and I hope that the adjudicator will help to resolve some of the difficulties—although I still feel that an entirely independent adjudication system would ultimately be preferable. No doubt amendments to that effect can be debated in Committee.
I agree entirely with the idea of an advice centre, suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). If nothing else, it would get subsidence claims out of Members' surgeries. A national centre, or centres in various localities, could provide far more expertise than my hon. Friends or me.
On finding subsidence damage, many of my constituents go first to an estate agent or mining subsidence agent. Such people, however, simply act as a postbox between the claimant and British Coal, picking up the fee at the end of the day. Claimants come to me asking, "Will you please help me with my mining subsidence claim? The agent has told me that he can do nothing", or "The agent is dragging his feet." Usually, after an intervention by letter, things get moving again; the agent generally does not know what to do, or simply does not want to do it. If more is involved than sending a letter to British Coal and waiting for a cheque, they do not want to know.

Mr. Meale: Many agents use hon. Members, or attempt to use them, simply to extend that postbox system, so that they can charge clients extra fees. Labour Members have received hundreds of letters from agents about their constituents, all of whom have been charged small amounts at some stage.

Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has considerable experience of mining agents. We on the Select


Committee were surprised when we visited his constituency to see such a proliferation of mining subsidence agents. In my constituency, where coal mining has been carried on for hundreds of years, I cannot think of one such agent. It is usually surveyors or estate agents who provide a service for mining subsidence. I have considerable doubts about the involvement of agents and would prefer to see a simple, uncomplicated, free arbitration service backed by an advice centre from which people could get free and fair advice.
I support the call for British Coal to keep a register. The Select Committee touched on that when we said that we thought that a register going back about 15 years and providing details of claims relating to properties should be brought into operation. British Coal has considerable records, and it would be its task to computerise them, bring them up to date and centralise them. There should be a register at some point to help claimants to avoid the problems of blight, and to show purchasers exactly how many claims have been made against a property. Searches by British Coal solicitors should remain compulsory, and more should be done to ensure that purchasers have enough information about property to enable them to be advised about exactly what dangers lie ahead.
I welcome the Bill's proposals about notification. Far too little notice is given to people in mining areas about when mining is to take place. Such information is always difficult to find and is always subject to change by British Coal. The notification provision would help in relation to time limits, and it would also help British Coal which could say that people had been notified about mining in their area at a precise time and should therefore have been on their guard for damage which occurred after that. It would alert residents of the possibility of damage, and that would be a big advantage.
Some hon. Members talked about blight. The blight in some areas would be alleviated if people had confidence in the fairness of a compensation system and a simple arbitration scheme. Much of the blight on properties in mining areas could be removed by such schemes.
I am conscious of the effect of subsidence on collieries. Some collieries in my constituency were closed because of subsidence and some have been calculated as too expensive to run because of the projected cost of damage to buildings above the mine workings. Subsidence is a heavy cost on the industry at a time when it is facing many difficulties. I agree with the hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Leicestershire, North-West that a balance must be struck. If all subsidence claims went ahead and the cost of them became excessive, it would be a greater threat to the future of the industry than the threats from imported coal and other forms of power generation.
Mining subsidence causes great stress and heartache. As many hon. Members have said, a person's property is probably the biggest investment he will ever make. I give the Bill a guarded welcome and look forward to the proceedings in Committee.

Dr. Mike Woodcock: I warmly welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. The Government can take some credit for seeking to remove some of the worst injustices arising from the damage

caused by subsidence. However, they can take a little less credit for the time that they have taken. As we all know, Waddilove reported as long ago as 1984. The Government took three years to respond, a further year to issue a consultation paper, and another three years to introduce the Bill. In 1986–87 the Energy Select Committee said that it was not satisfied with the system and asked why it had taken three years, following Waddilove, to devise a more equitable system of determining subsidence damage. A further four years have elapsed. Yes, the Government are to be warmly congratulated, but this action is not before time.
I mention the delay because I seek not to be critical of the Government, but to stress the importance of getting it right this time. So many people have waited for so long that it would be tragic if we got it wrong again and if we did not ensure that the Bill contained all the right provisions. I pay tribute to the people who have campaigned long and hard to have the Bill brought to fruition. I mention particularly, but not exclusively, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), who was particularly helpful while he was a Parliamentary Private Secretary. The united industry working party has joined many other organisations that are concerned about remedying subsidence damage. Without its efforts, we should probably not be debating the Bill tonight.
Let me declare an interest—in fact, several interests. I advise the Chamber of Coal Traders; I live in an area and in a house affected by subsidence damage; I have business premises that are affected by subsidence damage; my home is surrounded by farmland that is affected by subsidence damage. But, more important than all that, I know hundreds of people whose homes have been damaged. These people, without exception, regard the present law as inadequate. They think that British Coal is operating unreasonably and unfairly, and they are of the opinion that new legislation is long overdue. Similarly, every solicitor, every professional adviser and every accountant to whom I have spoken regards the present position as being unfair.
Thus the Bill is to be warmly welcomed in principle. It is a large and complicated piece of legislation. I do not intend to deal at this stage with matters of detail, which can best be addressed in Committee. However, I want to mention a few points that the Bill addresses adequately, and a few of those with which it does not deal adequately. Let me deal first with those matters in respect of which the Bill does a good job. The Government are to be congratulated on the definition of the standard of repair. The Bill resolves the differences between the Acts of 1957 and 1975. British Coal will be obliged to carry out repairs to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant. That is satisfactory. Some commentators have argued that British Coal is not required to carry out repairs to the standard that applied before the damage occurred. I understand that argument, but I believe that, in practice, the courts will find little distinction between the two standards.
The second area in which the Bill does a good job concerns clarification of the time limit for notifying damage. Under the 1957 Act the requirement is two months. Clearly, such a short period is ridiculous—especially when viewed against British Coal's record in the discharge of its responsibilities. The six-year rule that was


unilaterally imposed by British Coal under the 1975 Act was very often applied incorrectly. Many hon. Members have related their experience of British Coal's interpretation of the six years as starting on the date of the beginning of mining, rather than on the date on which damage occurred. That rule had no basis, either legally or morally. Clause 3 makes provision for claimants to serve a damage notice within six years of the first time they ought reasonably to have been aware of the damage. That is much clearer and much fairer.
The third area in which the Bill does a good job concerns the obligation imposed on British Coal to meet claimants' expenses that have been reasonably incurred. That is a good provision, which is wider than the voluntary code that British Coal applies now under which it pays only for professional advice in many cases, and often for only part of that professional advice. I note that there is no definition of "reasonable", and that could cause a problem. It is wrong that anyone who undertakes a successful claim against British Coal should be left out of pocket. Those are the best provisions of the Bill. They are excellent and do a good job.
Unfortunately, the Bill has many shortcomings, about which I hope that Ministers will think, and which I hope that the Committee will address. The first is the arbitration provisions covered by clause 41. Waddilove recommeded as early as 1984 that there should be an arbitration scheme. It was obviously necessary. I am sure that we can understand the reluctance of the man in the street to go to law against a mighty state industry using the taxpayers' money to fight its legal battles. For several years, British Coal claimed to have a voluntary system of independent adjudication, a system which it replaced in January this year, and that that voluntary scheme was one of the reasons why legislation on arbitration was not necessary. In reality, that scheme meant almost nothing. It was rarely used because British Coal stood in the way of its use.
Since 1 January, a new voluntary arbitration scheme, which at first glance appears to be fair and reasonable, has been in place. It is conducted by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, British Coal pays most of the costs, with claimants paying a £50 registration fee if it is proved wrong, and the findings are binding on both parties. One may think that that is excellent because, for the first time, claimants have the right to cheap, fair adjudication in disputes with British Coal. However, we must not be fooled. If one reads the small print, one sees that the scheme can be used only if both the claimant and British Coal agree. What nonsense that is. What use is a right of arbitration if the party that is in the wrong can refuse access to the arbitration process even if the claimant wants to use it?
Arbitration is a common feature of many commercial contracts. For example, if parties cannot agree on a rent review, each has the right of arbitration. That fact is a spur to each party to act reasonably, not to make excessive demands and to seek agreement. If one party i o any commercial contract can act unreasonably and then deny the other party access to arbitration, an arbitration scheme is made worthless. It is like saying that anybody anywhere can agree to arbitration. Of course he can, but that is not a right to arbitration. A right exists only if both parties can go to arbitration even if the other party objects.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman is making a good case about the arbitration scheme which we were told was

introduced on 1 January. He asked earlier whether carrying out repairs to the reasonable satisfaction of the person whose property had been damaged was the right sort of test. "Reasonable" crops up again in relation to the six-year rule. One has to show that it is reasonable to expect a person to know that the damage had occurred six years before. A dispute on that point can be denied referral to arbitration if British Coal denies that it falls within the six-year rule.

Dr. Woodcock: The hon. Gentleman has still not grasped the point, which has been made several times, that, under the Bill, a claim can be made up to six years after the damage occurred, not six years after mining. If we were to rely on the provisions of the arbitration scheme, British Coal could refuse anyone the right to go to arbitration, no matter whether the case arose in fewer than six years, six years or more than six years. Whatever it is, British Coal has to agree. If it wished, British Coal could say, "If we feel that we are right and that we have a cast iron case, we shall let you go to arbitration. If we think that you are right and that we are wrong, we shall refuse you arbitration and you will not be able to go before the arbitrators." That is crazy.
The Bill will allow the Secretary of State to direct that British Coal sets up a proper scheme, and in that respect the Bill is deficient. It should require the Secretary of State to require British Coal to submit such a scheme. We all know what will happen in the absence of a requirement. We have a voluntary new arbitration scheme, and it is likely that the Bill will be enacted. If we are not careful, the Secretary of State will say, "Let us see whether the arbitration scheme works. Now is not the time to legislate." If that happens, we shall have another three or four years of British Coal refusing arbitration while the Secretary of State makes up his mind whether to introduce a scheme. The arbitration should be put on a statutory footing now. Claimants should have a right to go to arbitration irrespective of British Coal's wishes.
Secondly, the Bill's provisions to provide compensation for inconvenience and disturbance are deficient. Clause 25 allows the Secretary of State to require such a scheme. It should go further and require imposition. British Coal has demonstrated time and again its ability to persuade the Department of Energy to adopt a course that is not in the interests of the victims of subsidence damage. The House should not leave a further loophole. Instead of giving the Secretary of State the right to ask for a scheme, it should require a scheme to be introduced.
The third defect is the three-year limit on instituting legal proceedings from when British Coal was first in breach of its duty to repair. On the face of it, that seems reasonable, but what is the position of all the claimants who, during the past seven years since the Waddilove committee reported, have had their claims rejected under the old arbitrary rules? Those claimants would not be turned down if the Bill were an Act. Are we saying that such claimants will be disbarred under clause 42, which imposes a three-year rule? If so, that is not justice.
It is right that the Bill should impose a three-year limit on new claims, but it should allow all claimants who were rejected under the arbitrary approach to institute proceedings under the terms set out in the Bill or to make a new claim under the Bill irrespective of the six-year rule for notifying damage. If the Government do not accept that, thousands of people will be denied justice. There are


thousands of householders who had claims rejected by British Coal's interpretation of its self-imposed six-year rule.
The fourth defect is to be found in clause 43, which deals with the investigation of complaints. The clause allows the Secretary of State to set up a scheme but I believe that it should impose one. We have watchdogs for all sorts of things in public life and in industry. We even have a watchdog for coal consumers, the Domestic Coal Consumers Council. Yet we have nothing for the victims of subsidence. Experience dictates that there should be such a scheme.
I shall detain the House for not much longer. I have mentioned some of the Bill's principal defects but there are others, including the discretion that British Coal has and retains in determining the method of meeting a claim. No similar discretion is allowed to claimants. There is no requirement to notify all owners of property rather than occupiers. A time limit is imposed on claimants but not on British Coal. British Coal may take months to prepare schedules of damage in the absence of a specific time limit. On receiving such a schedule, the claimant has only 28 days to consider it and reject it. He may be on holiday or he may have other matters to attend to. He may be in need of professional advice but he has only 28 days. Why are time limits imposed on a man who has no professional advice and expertise, whereas no time limits are imposed on British Coal, which has professional advice and expertise and is staffed to deal with matters in a timely manner?
All those matters should be dealt with by the Bill. Basically, it is a good Bill and it should be welcomed. It has the right intentions, but I fear that it is still weighted in favour of British Coal and against the man in the street. The Government should take the opportunity to table suitable amendments and so ensure that justice is no longer denied to the thousands of claimants who, because of lack of money, expertise, will or courage, have had full justice denied to them for so long. Yes, the Government are to be congratulated on at last introducing the Bill, but they have some way to go yet. They must not lose the opportunity to accept sensible amendments in Committee and to ensure, once and for all, that the problem of subsidence damage is eradicated.

Mr. Allen McKay: I view the Bill from my experience as an ex-industrial relations officer for the National Coal Board, as a local councillor for 20 years and as a Member of Parliament whose constituency has been blighted by mining subsidence for some considerable time.
Anyone who has not seen a complete village subject to the severest mining subsidence has not seen mining subsidence. In that village, 142 prefabricated houses, 36 stone-built houses and virtually two streets were demolished. It has taken 20 years for the village to come on stream again, but come on stream it has. Its scars have disappeared and the gaps between buildings are now gardens.
The Bill, like every mining Bill, provides no compensation for the stress and strain that those people suffered in those 20 years. There is no compensation for

people whose houses were severely damaged and who, as a result, had nervous breakdowns and sometimes ended up in an institution. That happened to two of my constituents. Although one could not put one's hand on one's heart and say that the cause was subsidence, there is no doubt that it contributed.
When I asked British Coal why no payments are made for stress and strain, it said that stress and strain cannot be measured. The same used to be said of compensation for diseases, but the Department of Health now measures degrees of disability. I see no reason why stress and strain because of subsidence should not be calculated on the same basis.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire North-West (Mr. Ashby) is a lawyer, and I accept his interpretation of the six-year rule, but what matters is not his but the board's interpretation. It has interpreted its six-year rule in many ways. I understand it as the period not from when coal has begun to be taken out but when it has ceased to be taken out, after which the board accepts no liability.
That is why I think that there is a great need for an arbitration scheme that allows either of the parties to decide whether to go for arbitration. Like the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock), I know what will happen: the board will agree to arbitration for cases that it knows it can win, but not for cases that it is likely to lose. If a claimant's bid for arbitration is refused, he can go either to the Secretary of State or the Lands Tribunal. Nobody will apply to the Lands Tribunal because of the sheer cost and the length of time that an application takes.
The way in which arbitration works in industrial relations is at the back of British Coal's mind—if both parties agree to take their dispute to arbitration, the case goes to arbitration, but if one party decides not to do so, it does not. British Coal is probably considering the possibility of creating precedents.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) said that he would like to remove the clause allowing a person to pick his own builder or to do the job himself. I should like that clause strengthened. I am involved in a case in which British Coal decided that its workmen were too busy to do some work, which meant that a long period would pass before remedial work could be done. British Coal asked the person concerned to get three quotations from three builders on the schedule of repairs which had been agreed. He did so, but because they did not agree with what British Coal thought should be the cost, the quotations were rejected.
I asked the man to get three more quotations, to find out whether the first three were similar, and he did. Lo and behold, they were in line with the three previous quotations. British Coal will not accept the quotations because it says that the cost is £1,000 higher than it would be if it did the work.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I returned to the Chamber just as the hon. Gentleman commented on my speech. I shall check Hansard. I did not say that I wanted that clause taken out of the Bill; I was merely asking would-be claimants to exercise a little caution if they wished to choose their own contractor, for the good reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) illustrated. We can leave the clause in the Bill, but householders should be careful if they use their own contractor.

Mr. McKay: Indeed. If householders use their own contractor, or do the job themselves, all obligations on British Coal cease. If anything happens after that, British Coal can say, "It was your builder, not ours. Your builder must correct the problem." There can be no retrospective claim on British Coal.
I shall give some cases which could be put right if the arbitration provisions were remedied. The whole of a farmer's land suffered from mining subsidence which was so severe that he had to sell his herd of cows because his milking and cow sheds fell in. Unfortunately, that coincided with the introduction of milk quotas. He had no cows, so he did not get a milk quota. He now has a marvellous milk parlour and cow sheds,: but no cows. There is no compensation to cover such a knock-on effect.
I am involved in another case in which British Coal said, "That was not our fault. The subsidence must have been caused by shrinkage." However, it has pulled down and rebuilt four houses nearby and repaired the adjoining property and other property. There is the spectacle of an 8 ft wall, half of it new—constructed by British Coal—and the other half broken because British Coal will not accept liability for it. It says that the property is too old and that the problems are not caused by mining subsidence. My argument is that it may be old property, but there was a knock-on effect from subsidence. That person is caught. If mining subsidence is not to blame, the damage will be the subject of an insurance claim. The insurance company says that mining subsidence is to blame, so my constituent cannot win. The case will probably end up in court somewhere.
Let me return to the question of the board doing the repairs. The board's workmen were advised against

jacking up a huge bungalow. The person who lived in that bungalow had spent his savings on building it because his wife was an invalid. He built it with that in mind. The board decided to jack the building up rather than doing what it was doing next door, which was to pull down and rebuild. As a result, the bungalow now has six steps even though the couple built it to provide ground-level accommodation for the wife. There is no compensation for that; there is nothing that the couple can do about it. The Bill should take such matters into consideration.
The board always seeks to include its favourite clause —the full and final settlement clause. How can one have full and final settlement when the earth continues to move? In the village of Elsecar, for example, the earth is still moving after 20 years. Yet I guarantee that if anyone now submits a claim, British Coal will go back to the full and final settlement clause.
Those are some of the matters that the Bill should put right. I welcome the Bill because it is a step in the right direction. The Committee must bear in mind the fact that the Bill could represent our last opportunity to deal with the matter. If the industry continues in its present direction it certainly will be. With the shrinkage of the industry, it could be our last chance to put things right.
Neither the Committee nor the House should rush things. We should get the details right. There seems to me to be a large degree of consensus and I think that the Committee will be a happy one. The agreement between hon. Members on both sides of the House should be translated into fact so that the Bill will be better when it emerges from Committee.

Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) said that this was very much a Committee Bill. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued, it will certainly require extensive amendment in Committee and on Report. The Minister described the Bill as a consolidation Bill. To the extent that it is a consolidation Bill, it consolidates legislation which is not acceptable and which needs to be extended. We must ensure that it is a stepping stone to help us to deal with the problems of coal mining subsidence rather than being another stumbling block in our way, and it is in danger of becoming a stumbling block unless some of the ideas expressed in the debate today are taken on board in Committee.
Many hon. Members have referred to clause 41, which I approach from a slightly different angle. It deals with arbitration procedures and says that
The Secretary of State may give directions to the Corporation
to introduce the scheme. Hon. Members have emphasised the word "may" and I shall not go further into that argument. There may also be a problem as to whether the corporation is the appropriate body to produce the scheme and proposals, given the problems that exist within its existing arbitration scheme.
The corporation claimed to establish its scheme from 1 January this year. On 21 December 1990 it put out a press release to say that the scheme, under the auspices of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, would be coming into operation. In fact, the corporation had been operating a scheme before that date. A constituent of mine, Mr. Briggs, had his case dealt with in a report produced in November 1990, although the scheme was supposed only to be starting on 1 January 1991. Problems with Mr. Briggs's case highlight the difficulties with the proposed arbitration scheme as a scheme that could be developed in future or one that might be acceptable for three or four years before something more substantial is introduced in its place.
Mr. Briggs lives in Franklin drive, Staveley, in Chesterfield. That is the address that suffers the coal mining subsidence problem. However, he lived elsewhere for two and a half years after the board moved him out. The board must believe that Mr. Briggs has caused it many difficulties and problems because he was terribly dissatisfied with the work that the board was carrying out.
The case went to arbitration only after a great deal of work had been carried out and the arbitration system functioned only in the board's interests. The scheme was that operated by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and it is the one that was supposed to begin from the start of this year. There are some slight differences in its terms, but it is almost an early draft of the scheme that was introduced in a tidied up form at the beginning of the year.
The arbitrator was Mr. M. D. Joyce of M. D. Joyce Associates, a firm of consultant geo-technical engineers. Whether they were the most appropriate people to conduct the arbitration is open to question as they do not seem to have had great expertise in bricks and mortar or the problems associated with the house as distinct from the geo-technical skills that Mr. Joyce undoubtedly possessed.
I received a letter from Mr. Briggs on 30 October in which he wrote:
it seems to me that the arbitration 'cooked-up' between the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators does not permit a person of limited means to enter into Arbitration … This method of Arbitration rests, in the first instance, on documentary submissions by both parties and for most this would entail a complainant engaging professional assistance … In my case it has cost something approaching £900, so far.
Although it is stated in the board's arbitration scheme that costs are covered, that relates to the costs of employing the arbitrator and the work that the arbitrator carries out. The scheme does not cover the costs involved in preparing the claimant's submission.
In Mr. Briggs's case, the matters that had been in dispute for some time cost a considerable amount. Mr. Briggs claimed for 49 items totalling £5,407. In the end, he received £1,471 and he had to meet £900 costs in connection with the claim. Therefore, he received about 10 per cent. of the initial claim. That was said to be in full and final settlement of his claim. However, Mr. Briggs had sought a determination of the costs if the claim had been settled by payment rather than by work that the board was to carry out. Of 49 items, 28 were found in favour of the board and were the more costly items, and they averaged £141 each. One item was agreed—that is, that one third would be paid to Mr. Briggs—and 20 were found in his favour, and they averaged £73. I shall quote section 4.22 of the report to illustrate something about its nature. It concerns a claim for carpet fitting. The report states:
The fitting of the carpet is poor but it has not been proved that it ever fitted properly.
The onus of proof being in the hands of the claimant rather than being left with the board has presented a great problem. The report goes on to state:
Present gaps cannot be attributed to subsidence since the walls were not rebuilt in new positions.
That is an astonishing claim—one must have walls that have been rebuilt, rather than walls that have been repaired, and ground that had been disturbed for other reasons for there to be a genuine gap in the carpeting. The report goes on to state:
Accordingly, I find in favour of the respondent and make no award to the claimant. There is, however, one vent plate still to be fitted, but this will be done at negligible cost.
Whatever that minor cost is, it is to be met by Mr. Briggs. Throughout the report similar provisions were challenged by Mr. Briggs. However, in the end he agreed, because of the pressures that the board began to put on him to make use of the arbitration system.
That arbitration system is now fully in place—Mr. Briggs has been used as a guinea pig—and the system is in danger of either being accepted under clause 41 or held up by clause 41. It is operating, and we are asked to see how it begins to pan out in the long run. I hope that the Committee will be careful about that matter. A host of similar measures are contained within the legislation. At the moment they are something we know not what. We may have a decent piece of legislation in the offing and it might be able to be bashed into shape in Committee, but it would be terrible if, in Committee, the Government got out the Whips, pushed the legislation, and claimed that they have produced something that answers the criticisms that have been made. We would then have a cosmetic provision that would not be much different from that which exists in law at the moment. The whole matter is yet to be played for.
I hope that the Minister has listened to the arguments and will say that this measure is merely an agenda for further legislation and that that legislation will be properly and fully considered.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I shall not attempt to repeat the points that my hon. Friends have made, because the hour is late and they have touched on many points in the Bill that are worthy of consideration in Committee. However, I shall mention one or two points that have not been mentioned. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) for the work that he has done on this matter since he came to the House in 1987 and his dedication in pushing for this legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and other hon. Members who sat on the Energy Select Committee and visited Mansfield, which is on the edge of my constituency, did a first-class job.
There is something about the Bill which has not been mentioned and which is rather peculiar. It was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, for instance, despite promises that it would be. Now the Bill has suddenly been brought before the House. It makes one wonder whether the previous Prime Minister was against such a measure in view of her vendetta against the miners following the strike. Perhaps a change of Prime Minister has allowed the measure to be introduced. What is the reason for its suddenly being introduced? One reason is certain. At the bottom of page iv the Bill says:
The Bill is not expected to have any significant effects on central government expenditure.
In other words, the Bill will not cost the Government a penny. Why the Bill could not have been introduced earlier if everyone knew that it would not cost the Government a penny, and why it has been introduced now, when the Government are in dire financial circumstances, has not been explained. But it is obvious to my way of thinking. If the Tory Government are re-elected at the next general election, one of the first things that they will do is sell off the coal mining industry.
Privatisation of the coal mining industry would be severely set back if potential buyers faced vast unknown expenditure on compensation for coal mining subsidence. People will be eager to buy the coal mining industry, not because of the coal under the ground, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) worked out is worth about 3p per tonne to a potential buyer, but for the vast acreage of land which British Coal owns. Many thousands, if not millions, of acres and many square miles of land owned by British Coal have planning permission for industrial development, all in ripe areas, where there is plenty of surplus labour. It will be a bonanza for any potential buyer unless there is a subsidence problem.
When pits have shut in my area—in Worksop near Mansfield—we have tried to bring in potential developers to build new factories. The one thing that terrifies potential developers is the word "subsidence". They run a mile, even if they are told that the building can be put on a raft, it will be a light pre-fabricated factory and only girls using sewing machines will be in the factory so there will be no weight on the area. As soon as they hear the word "subsidence" potential developers are off. That will be a great deterrent to anyone wanting to buy the land owned by the coal industry.
If the Conservatives win the next election they will build the two new ports at Killingholme and suck in imported coal from South Africa, Bolivia and Colombia which will finish off the British coal industry.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: rose—

Mr. Ashton: I give way to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), who has just come in.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was here at the beginning of the debate, which is more than he was. He is overplaying the card of subsidence deterring developers coming into former mining areas. I do not know whether my constiutuency is unique. I do not think that it is. On the site of the Wilford pit there is now an industrial site which employs at least five to 10 times as many people as ever went down the pit. That is a massive industrial development. The Wollaton pit to which I referred in my speech has a 600-property housing estate on it. The hon. Gentleman is overplaying that card.

Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman thinks that every pit is the same. I apologise for coming in late, but I had urgent constituency business to attend to. Some of us go to our constituencies and have things planned three weeks in advance. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, who represents a little piece of Nottingham, I represent 300 square miles and the 50 parish councils need a great deal of attention. I shall not respond to his remarks about Wilford or other such pits, because he represents a city area.
The reason why the Government have introduced the Bill and why it will not cost them anything is pretty apparent. They have made this move in case they win the next general election. I do not believe that they will but if they do and they want to privatise the pits, arrangements will be in place to compensate potential buyers. Who will pay British Coal? Has the measure been costed? Of course, it has not. I have not seen any estimate of the costs that British Coal will have to bear. I am willing to give way to the Minister or anyone who can say how many millions it is estimated that it will cost.
We all feel sorry for our poor constituents. Some of them have had a terrible time because of planning blight, which has prevented them from selling their houses. They come to my surgeries and ask me to take the matter up, but they beg me not to mention subsidence because they know that if it gets out that a certain street is affected they will not be able to sell their houses.
How many people face that problem, and how much will it cost? As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield knows, our district council carried out a survey and sent out a questionnaire with the electoral registration form, asking, "Has your house got subsidence? Have you ever made a claim?"

Mr. Haynes: They did that in Ashfield.

Mr. Ashton: Yes, the questionnaire was sent out in Ashfield and in Bolsover. It was sent to 37,000 houses. How much will compensation cost? A massive amount: if it were £1,000 per house, it would be £37 million. How many pits will that shut down? Will British Coal have to bear the whole cost? Those questions have not been fully considered, nor has the overall strategy and the economic consequences for British Coal.
Another factor, about which I questioned the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, is that when my constituents buy their houses—whether from British Coal or from anyone else—and they get a mortgage from the Halifax, the Alliance and Leicester or some other building society, they are told that they have to insure the property. On top of £200 a month for a mortgage, they have to pay £30 for insurance. God knows why they pay insurance, because when they claim from the insurance company, it does not want to know. Insurance companies say that they are not covered for subsidence and landslip and tell them, the home owners, to read the small print as there is an exclusion clause. Insurance companies do not charge any less for insuring houses in a coal mining area, but they refuse to pay out. Even if it is proved that the pit does not run anywhere near the house—I know of such cases in Worksop—the insurance companies still say that the damage must have been caused by landslip and it is a well-known fact that they do not pay for that.
What have the Government done to get to grips with the insurance companies? Why is there nothing in the Bill to ensure that they are challenged before £37 million compensation is loaded on to the coal board which might shut some more pits? But the insurance companies will get away scot free. No one says a word to them. No one says that they have any responsibilities or that they should be taken to the insurance ombudsman. No one says that my constitutents should not have to pay as much insurance because the coal board will pay out.
Those major elements are missing from the Bill. There has been a conspiracy of silence between the Government and the insurance companies. Why is the Bill being brought in now? What will it cost? How many pits will shut down because of it? What damage will it do and what will be the economic consequences for British Coal? British Coal are not angels, but they are certainly not villains, as they have been portrayed.
I hope that in Committee we will get some of the answers to my questions. I hope that we will not pass a Bill without knowing what it will cost a nationalised industry, how many houses are involved and without any surveys. There have been no estimates of the costs involved. Someone has to pay and, because coal is a nationalised industry, Conservative Members do not give a damn. If British Coal has to pay millions of pounds in compensation it will shut more pits, and we must realise that before we start down this road.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I am a little surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who has poured cold water on the argument about mining subsidence and the way that it seriously affects the coal mining industry.
The Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who is here for this debate, is a nice young chap. He is learning fast about the coal mining industry. He will certainly learn fast in Committee. I can assure him that I will be one of the Opposition Members in Committee, arguing in favour of many of the provisions in the Bill, but also arguing—along with my colleagues—for certain amendments to the Bill, with a view to further improvements. That is not altogether satisfactory.
This issue came to light just before I first entered the House, and it has been argued about right up to the present day. We are led to believe that, at long last, the Government have got off their backside and are prepared to do something. I welcomed the Waddilove report. That committee did a first class job, and clearly stated that claimants were not getting a fair deal. The Government eventually took that report on board and accepted it. The then Secretary of State for Energy stood at the Dispatch Box and said so.
Even though the Waddilove report said wonderful things to the people in my constituency and those in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), we have been kicked from pillar to post. For years we have been asked at our surgeries, "What are you going to do about this problem?" People queue up to discuss their claims.
Only this morning I received a letter from a constituent whose claim had been rejected by the Coal Board, and that individual wants to know what action I will take. I informed him that we were to debate a Bill on the Floor of the House this evening that I hoped would sort out his problem. One issue that will confront the Under-Secretary in Committee is the situation in respect of people whose claims have been rejected in the past. There are many of them in my constituency, as there are in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield.
When Ian MacGregor's appointment as chairman of British Coal was announced, the then Secretary of State was the Member of Parliament for a Croydon constituency. What did he know about mining and subsidence? We warned him not to appoint MacGregor, because we knew what would happen. He caused a flipping strike right through the industry. He also got his consultants and advisers to examine the cost of mining subsidence. When the Government saw the figure, they said, "We'd better shove this over to the Energy Select Committee, to find out the real global picture."
Those of us who represent mining constituencies knew the real problem—not that Secretary of State from Croydon. Mr. Speaker is the Member of Parliament for a Croydon seat, and I also want to give him a warning—through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker plans to retire at some stage.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: So does the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Haynes: That is correct. I am retiring too, but this evening I am representing my constituents, because they have been given a raw deal. We are looking to the young Minister to give them a fair deal.
I think that we might win in Committee. There is obviously agreement across the Floor of the House that something must be done. At long last, the Government are prepared to do something. When we get Upstairs, we shall see how much.
I have advised Mr. Speaker that, when he retires, he should come to live in the beautiful county of Nottinghamshire. It is gorgeous. Mind you, Mr. Speaker passes by my constituency from time to time. In fact, he has accepted an invitation to visit the Royal British Legion in my constituency in June. He returns to that beautiful county. He often visits and stays the weekend with some friends. He travels the Nottinghamshire roads in his limousine with Robert, his driver. Being on those roads is like being at Blackpool on a switchback going up and


down—it is caused by mining subsidence. He has experienced mining subsidence on the Nottingharnshire roads. Until the problems and negotiations are sorted out, it will cost the county council a fortune to put things right on the roads.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw that a great deal of cost is involved, but there is also much suffering on the part of our constituents. An elderly lady of 82, who lived in a bungalow, came to my surgery. She and her husband, who had died, had spent all their lives saving so that they might own their own bungalow. They did not want to live in a local authority bungalow, although they were plentiful then, before the Tories came to power. She came to my surgery, told me that her bungalow had subsidence and asked me to help. I said, "Let me know about it, ducky." She explained the problem in detail.
The board said that it would not settle the claim because it was going to mine another, lower, seam under the bungalow. By the time the seam came through, eight years had gone by and the board rejected her claim. Similar incidents will occur with a six-year limit. We must clarify the six-year period in Committee.
When I became the Member of Parliament for As hfield, having worked in that wonderful pit at Clipstone, just outside Mansfield, for 35 years, the National Coal Board in Nottinghamshire offered a fairer deal. The time limit for working things out with the Coal Board was not six years, but 12. But what happened? MacGregor was appointed chairman of the board, and he stopped that allowance straight away. There was fairness in Nottinghamshire, but that man from America—fancy appointing an American to run an industry in this country when we had people, including one in the House of Lords, who would have done a marvellous job—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him!"] He was the former Member for Barnsley—now I have named him.

Mr. Ashton: Bernard Taylor?

Mr. Haynes: No, my hon. Friend has got it wrong there.
Those are the sorts of problems that we have in our constituences and that we want sorted out. I am sure that the Minister has listened to every contribution that has been made this afternoon, even from Conservative Members, who said that their constituents were not getting a fair deal. He has had his ear bashed today, and he will get it walloped in Committee if he does not take the right course. I have given the Minister fair warning. I have covered the issue of the board disqualifying a claim because it has been made after a certain period.
I have been to see some of the work done by the contractors that the Coal Board is supposed to have on a list. Local authorities could do the work, but the board appoint contractors—some of them are cowboys. We talk about residents having to be in a caravan in the front garden while their house is being repaired, but more often than not the contractor pushes off to do another job and leaves the residents in a caravan well into the winter. That is ridiculous and we want to get away from all that. I hope that the Bill will achieve that.
Hon. Members have talked about the board buying properties because they are so severely damaged. The board has paid the complainant compensation, he or she has been satisfied with the amount and accepted it—agents have been used, some of whom have made themselves

millionaires. They have made a fortune—riding around in Rolls-Royces. I hope that we are going to get rid of that. The board, however, has been using the properties that it has bought as transit properties, which people can move into while their own properties are being done up. It should be encouraged to do much more than that, so that people do not suffer in the interim. We must look after the people whom we represent.
I am sorry that I have to mention the next point—individuals being refused by the board. The Minister said earlier that, if the board rejected the claim, the claimant had the right to go to the tribunal; but through the Secretary of State. What if the result is a heap of claims awaiting the OK from the Secretary of State? I am sure that you have experienced that yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have put questions to Ministers—including Secretaries of State—and have sometimes waited months for a reply. What if that happens with claimants whose cases have had to be referred to the Secretary of State?
The Secretary of State has not been in the job for long; he is an accountant, or something like that. He does not know anything about mining; he hasn't a flipping clue. He should come and talk to people like my colleagues and me, who know what mining and mining subsidence are about. We must speed up the process of referrals to the Secretary of State. Then we shall be getting somewhere—helping those poor people living out in our constituencies who have been suffering for so many years. What has been happening is scandalous.
I shall sit down in a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You need not look at your watch; there are four clocks here, and I can see them all. Do not worry about it. This debate is open-ended, by the way: you know what that means, Mr. Deputy Speaker. After all, you are experienced in this regard. You serve in a mining area, and there were many pits in your constituency in years gone by. You know what it is all about. You knew all about it when you were Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, and spoke from that Dispatch Box. You knew what the workers had to go through in mining and other heavy industries. I thought that you had a problem with Doncaster racecourse at one time, but I understand that the hot weather caused that problem rather than mining subsidence. Well, we have overcome that problem, have we not?
In the 15 years in which I worked for Nottinghamshire county council—and even before—it had a system called Clasp. I think that the hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) will know about that, because they know how local authorities work. The council built many schools and elderly people's homes that were able to take the movement of land, especially when it was due to mining subsidence. It built the properties throughout the county —right out in the mining areas. They could stand the movement, which was a good thing: we sent salesmen to foreign parts, and they were flogging them like nobody's business. The same kind of progress and advancement could be used in the mining areas. Nottinghamshire county council—Labour-controlled, of course—has given everyone a lead.
I hope that the Bill will not be long in Committee—I am sure that the Minister will agree—and that the right things will be in it, in the interests of the people whom we serve.
Here comes the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) —and he has only just walked in!

Mr. Spencer Batiste: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me now that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has subsided into his seat. apologise to the House for not being present for the bulk of the debate. I had to attend to some pressing constituency matters. I shall be extremely brief and take up a small fraction of the time taken by the hon. Member for Ashfield.
It is important to place on record the fact that the Bill has the widest possible cross-party support of hon. Members in mining constituencies from one end of the country to the other. Families can have few more distressing experiences than to have the quality of their home and home life destroyed by subsidence. Many of the technical problems of the past have led to long and distressing delays and great difficulties in achieving fairness.
On behalf of my hon. Friends from Yorkshire, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward a Bill which will address serious practical problems. The onus of proof is now firmly on British Coal and people will be able to bring in outside contractors if they are unhappy about delays caused by British Coal. Plainly, it is important for the Bill's details to be right, and that will be determined in Committee. I again congratulate the Government on an important measure which will improve the quality of life of many people.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) explained why he could not be present for the whole of the debate and he congratulated the Government. His congratulations are a trifle premature. It would have been more appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to express gratitude to the Government for presenting the House with an opportunity to put right a matter that has caused problems for a long time.
As the Minister knows, we do not intend to divide the House, but that does not mean that we do not have deep reservations about some aspects of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has announced his retirement, but the energy and vigour with which he spoke show that he will not go out with a whimper. There are some bangs left, and no doubt we shall hear a few in Committee if the Minister does not pay heed not merely to the suggestions of my hon. Friends, but to some of the pointed criticisms of Conservative Members. We have taken careful note of those criticisms and we trust that Conservative Members will join us in Committee to see to it that the improvements that their constituents and ours want to see are embodied in the Bill.
I want to be brief, but I need a little time to refer to some of the issues that have been raised. While we welcome the opportunity provided by the Bill, some hon. Members pointed to the rather protracted period that has elapsed since the subject was first raised. Some hon. Members were deeply concerned about the matter before I entered the House in 1970. Concern has been growing for years and it is a pity that such a Bill was not presented to the House three or four years ago.
I am especially grateful to the Select Committee for building on the recommendations in the Waddilove report to the point where the Government could no longer ignore the issue. I shall not go into great detail because close

scrutiny is a matter for the Committee. Before the Minister makes his winding-up speech, perhaps he would look at paragraph 12 of the Government's response to the Select Committee report. It says:
cases where claims have been rejected on grounds of time limits could be referred to the new voluntary arbitration procedure.
That needs to be set against the six-year proposal and the Minister may feel disposed to comment on that in his winding-up speech. If not, we shall certainly feel it necessary—as I hope Conservative Members will—to pursue the matter in Committee.
The Minister referred to the principle embodied in the slogan "The polluter pays". That is a slogan which both parties have voiced for a long time, but it seems to me that it has been accepted uncritically by Conservative Members. For that reason I want to refer briefly to the speech of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), who referred to subsidence and pollution from ancient mining operations. Not only are maps and plans of such antiquity unavailable; we do not even know who owned the mines. It may be argued that subsidence from collieries and, indeed, coalfields that had closed, or were approaching closure, before the passage of the nationalisation legislation of 1947 ought not to be a burden on the British coal industry as it makes enormous efforts to survive and succeed. It is all very well to make the polluter pay, but absolute reliance on that principle can have dangers. A polluter who has been dead for several hundred years cannot be made to pay.
There is another aspect of Government policy to which we should turn. If the polluter lacks the means to pay—if he becomes bankrupt, if his business folds, as so many businesses are folding now—who will compensate the community? Who will make up for the pollution? Excessive reliance on a slogan, without any detailed consideration, can be dangerous. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that matter before the Committee stage starts.
Very little has been said about the proposals to provide compensation for fa;mers. I am amazed that two Conservative Members from Nottinghamshire devoted their attention to their constituents rather than to their agricultural interests. They may feel that the Bill will assist them to retain their seats. However, if, in Committee, they do not support amendments to which they appear to have been giving credence, we shall ensure that they are more dependent on the farms. If they fail to support us in Committee, that factor will loom increasingly large.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) gave a detailed analysis of the Bill. Several hon. Members have paid very full tribute to him for the considerable amount of work that he has done. He referred to COALS, the local authority organisation which has done a great deal of work. I invite Conservative Members who may serve on the Standing Committee to look very carefully indeed at the balanced and informative material that that organisation has provided. I hope that it will help to determine some votes on the amendments that are necessary.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and several of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), referred to the almost inevitable weaknesses of the unrefined arbitration system that looks likely to emerge. I suggest that the Minister pays particular attention to the


case of Mr. Briggs from Staveley. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield made the point that society and the industrial base are changing. He feels that people may now be more prepared to speak up against the interests of the large coal industry in order to defend their rights as individuals. There may be some truth in that.
The most important reference to current developments came from my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). In effect—these are not his exact words—he said, "If we can't have the money, we in the coalfields are not going to have the muck." The problems in south Wales and in areas like mine in south Yorkshire have been sufficiently oppressive to convince us that we must press for environmental decency. Environmental decency means not compelling people to suffer the unfairness—sometimes protracted unfairness—and hardship caused by subsidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), in referring, quite properly, to the work of the Select Committee on Energy, said that the evidence given to it showed that compensation for subsidence was about 1·5 per cent. of British Coal's total costs. We are not talking about vast sums that would cripple that industry. My hon. Friend also made it clear that we are not criticising the officials of British Coal who have to administer the costs.

Mr. Allen McKay: Subsidence payments went in three stages. The first was the learning stage, the second was when the then National Coal Board was extremely generous, so much so that some buildings were improved, and the third was when purse strings were tightened. That stage coincided with the decision to move the levy on coal into a global sum and for each pit to pay for local damage. That was a terrible mistake.

Mr. Hardy: It was a mistake and it was dangerous, given some of the people at the top of British Coal, to make each colliery pay such costs. That sometimes assisted them to close a colliery rather earlier than it should have been closed. We should make it clear that the people carrying out these responsible tasks in British Coal are not being singled out for criticism. To illustrate the point, I can quote a constituency case of mine, particularly as the individual involved did not support my party. One of my constituents savagely criticised British Coal for not being kind and helpful in dealing with his demands for substantial compensation for subsidence. The reply of the British Coal officer concerned took the rather unusual form of sending a copy of my constituent's letter complaining about the damage that subsidence had done to his house and demanding money from British Coal together with the estate agent's blurb, which said that his house was a wonderful mansion in perfect condition. In those circumstances, I did not feel disposed to criticise the staff of British Coal in my area.
The area that I represent has had coal mining under it for up to 340 years, and has suffered mightily. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) spoke about the effect of subsidence on a dairy farmer in his constituency, but I recall that, as a result of subsidence in my constituency, he once had to rescue a cow —rather an amusing story.

Mr. Allen McKay: I was a retained fireman when a shallow seam subsided. That was when I saw three cows underground.

Mr. Hardy: That was due to a decision made by the National Coal Board as it then was, when I served on the local authority. It told the council that it was essential that it mined the Melton field from Wath main colliery and that, although it was a shallow seam, the quality of the coal was desperately needed in the national interest. The board assured us that it would do its best to ensure that there was adequate compensation. The local authority agreed that mining should begin. Within days, houses had begun to collapse, and within a short time the council had to rehouse what were significant numbers of people for a relatively small authority. We received a letter from a lady who complained about the foul language being used by workers whom she could hear from her dining room while they were working underground extracting coal. We were naturally able to assure her that no miners at Wath main colliery indulged in strong language, but that helped us to put a case to British Coal for adequate compensation for our community.
However, that community was hurt. As some of my hon. Friends have said, distress and trauma—the Minister used the word trauma—are caused when people have to leave their homes for months or when housewives who are proud of their homes find them in semi-dereliction, as a result of which they have to move into less satisfactory or smaller accommodation, without even knowing when they can return to the home that they have cared for for many years.
As some hon. Members have suggested, if such problems occurred in some of the more salubrious parts of the country, the Bill might have come before us a little sooner. We have, of course, shared the anxiety that has been expressed about the channel tunnel, and especially by those in Kent. We hope that those who have voiced their concern about matters that affect the more salubrious areas of the south-east will not object if the Minister decides to accept some of the sensible amendments to the Bill that have been recommended by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I could pay tribute to several hon. Members who have spoken and to whom I have not referred. I apologise to those I have not mentioned. I feel, however, that the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) should not escape attention. We suspect that the Government feel that it is necessary to legislate on subsidence in coal mining areas to facilitate the privatisation of the mining industry. They feel that there are areas where loot can be garnered.
There are Conservative Members who know a great deal about the mining industry and they might join us in urging caution before there is any hasty removal of the industry' from public control. If we do not have a substantial and significant body such as British Coal that is charged with properly fulfilling its responsibilities in matters of the sort that we are discussing, those responsibilities may not be fulfilled. The problems to which we have pointed have made it necessary for the Minister carefully to consider how the Bill, which my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome in principle, can be made welcome in the coal pits.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate.
We have debated the Bill for nearly five hours and I am grateful to hon. Members for the general support that it has received. Naturally, some aspects of it have attracted criticism. I believe that in part some of the criticisms rest on a misunderstanding of certain clauses, and perhaps are coloured by problems in dealing with events in the past.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), in his opening remarks, dwelt on the so-called six-year rule. I agree that this has suffered from various interpretations over the years. The 1957 legislation provided for only a two-months time limit and the 1975 legislation included no specific time limit. I agree with the Select Committee on Energy that at some stage British Coal should be able to close its books on a claim. We wish, however, to achieve a balance by giving householders a considerable time in which to lodge claims. I repeat and emphasise that the date of the original mining is not relevant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) mentioned the difficulties that have been experienced in old coalfields. I know that the Kingswood miners were famous in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Radstock coalfield covered my constituency, although the last pit there, New Rock, shut in 1968. I have some experience, however, of the difficulties caused by old coal mines. I am aware that the mining techniques of those days can delay subsidence for a considerable period. That is why the six-year period runs not from the date of mining, not even from the date of damage to a house, but from the date when the claimant becomes aware of the damage. The Bill places the onus on British Coal to prove that damage was not caused by subsidence, which removes the ambiguities that have clouded dealings between claimants, hon. Members and the coal board.
Several hon. Members referred to the arbitration scheme. British Coal's voluntary scheme has been in operation for only a month. It is designed to offer quick, informal and expensive—

Mr. Rowlands: Inexpensive.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I apologise. I meant quick, informal and inexpensive settlement of disputes. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned difficult constituency cases that were almost tailor-made for settlement under such an arbitration scheme. We shall review the operation of the scheme later in the year, at which time changes and extensions to it may be appropriate.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who has made a notable contribution to the subject. He expressed concern that British Coal could refuse arbitration. I draw his attention to clause 40(4)(a), which specifies that under a scheme approved by the Secretary of State British Coal will not only be bound by arbitration but will have to offer it. We shall discuss that further in Committee, but the fact that that regulation can be made will be a clear incentive for British Coal to operate its voluntary scheme reasonably and constructively.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend referred to clause 41(4)(a), which says:
While it is in force, a scheme approved under subsection (2) above—

(a) shall have effect, in relation to any dispute to which it relates, as a binding offer of arbitration".
Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the scheme that began last month will be approved under the Bill or that another scheme will be put in its place if that scheme does not work out?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I should correct the clause number: it is clause 41(4)(a). It may or may not be the scheme approved. If it needs to be extended and modified, it will be, but it is sensible to start off with a voluntary scheme and to see whether it is, in principle, a satisfactory way of resolving disputes and whether it will evolve into a scheme that is satisfactory to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, indeed, to the House.
Stop notices were mentioned. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) was concerned that British Coal can delay claims against it almost indefinitely. He would agree that, in principle, provision for stop notices is sensible. There is no point in repairing a house if it is to suffer almost immediate further damage from prospective mining. Under the Bill, stop notices must be reviewed every 12 months and lifted as soon as damage is not likely to occur in the next 18 months.
The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) asked who would pay when pits closed. That is an obligation on British Coal as a whole, but it is right, where possible, to stick to the principle that individual pits are responsible for subsidence that their activities cause. That is why I am against a general levy which would disguise that fact. There should be a clear incentive on individual pits and, indeed, on individual pit faces to reduce damage caused by subsidence.

Mr. Lofthouse: In 1985, there were eight pits in my constituency; today there is only one. There will be arguments in constituencies such as mine about which pit caused subsidence—a working pit or a pit which has closed. If the costs of closed pits are imposed on a working pit, it could become unprofitable and liable to closure.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I was going to come to the general burden on the industry.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) will know that in British Coal's most recently published accounts there is a provision of £243 million to cover subsidence damage. British Coal has anticipated most of the measures in the Bill and made provision accordingly. It could well be that that sum will be adequate to cover the financial obligations in the Bill. The Bill is needed whether or not the coal industry is in the public or the private sector.
We do not wish needlessly to burden British Coal with huge financial obligations regardless of cost. That could increase the price of coal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) said. We must be alive to the danger that we could cripple the industry. However, we want to specify the fair obligations on British Coal and clearly set out the corresponding rights of householders.
All hon. Members have welcomed the emphasis in the Bill on repair rather than compensation. Some of the difficulties mentioned may have arisen out of comparatively generous compensation payments which were taken by some people and not used to repair their homes, which


were sold to new purchasers who then found that the claim had been settled and that there was no way of getting money from British Coal to undertake the repairs.
The Bill is the culmination of much consultation with interested parties. It recognises that deep mining causes subsidence. We want a means of dealing with the undoubted pain and stress that subsidence can cause to individual householders, those in business, farmers and property owners. We will do that by carrying forward existing codes of practice, the best from the two main Acts of Parliament and the pre-notification requirements, and by insisting on timely repairs, the payment of reasonable expenses, the creation of a fair disputes procedure and many other items mentioned in the Bill.
This is a welcome Bill. It is a good Bill and, no doubt, in Committee we will make it even better.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

FOOD PROTECTION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Radioactivity in Sheep) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 20), dated 10th January 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1 1 th January, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Radioactivity in Sheep) (England) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 6), dated 10th January 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1 1 th January, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Radioactivity in Sheep) (Wales) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 5), dated 10th January 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to Standing Committee B that it have power to amend the Northern Irerland (Emergency Provisions) Bill so as to make, in relation to the whole of the United Kingdom, provision for and in connection with the exercise of investigation powers by persons other than constables.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Orders of the Day — River Cart (Flooding)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Mike Watson: I very much regret the necessity for this debate, and my regret is in no way related to the hour. I regret the fact that many of my constituents in the Langside and Battlefield districts of Glasgow are placed in a state of fear each time heavy and sustained rainfall occurs; in a caring society, that should surely not be allowed to happen. The second reason for my regret is the negative response that I have received to my letters on the subject, from both the Minister who is to reply and from the other Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton).
On 6 October, the latest serious flooding of the White Cart river occurred in the district to which I referred. Three days later, having visited the areas and having spoken to families who had been forced to leave their homes, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland. On 22 October, I received a reply from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West declining my request that he should visit the affected areas to see for himself the effect of the damage.
On 9 December, I wrote to the Minister who has responsibility for local government asking to meet him to discuss the matter along with the elected representatives on Glasgow district and Strathclyde regional council. Five weeks and several promptings later, I finally received a response in which the Minister declined to attend such a meeting. I therefore had no alternative but to seek this Adjournment debate to put my case to the Minister.
White Cart water rises to the south-west of the city of Glasgow between Eaglesham and East Kilbride. It flows through much of the south side of the city. After some 22 miles, it joins the Black Cart near Glasgow airport and then flows into the River Clyde at Renfrew.
There is a long history of flooding in much of the area through which the White Cart flows—most notably in Cathcart, Langside and Shawlands. Records dating back to 1908 suggest serious flooding in those districts on at least 16 occasions. That represents a frequency of once every five years.
During the early hours of 1 January 1984, flooding from the White Cart water caused extensive inundation, resulting in widespread disruption and affecting almost 500 homes and business premises in the Battlefield and Langside area. Water levels rose with exceptional speed —in some areas at more than I m per hour. Unfortunately, only 12 days later, on 13 January 1984, an almost identical flood occurred in the same area, with similar results.
That month was clearly exceptional but floods of a similar or greater magnitude had occurred in August 1920, January 1932, October 1959 and September 1962. Even though the average period between the most serious instances of flooding is around 10 years, there are many instances of floods which were less serious but which none the less forced residents to evacuate their homes. Overall, the interval between successive flooding of all categories has ranged from 12 days to 17 years. That illustrates a further problem—the sheer unpredictability of such events.
The last serious flooding occurred on the night of 5 October 1990. More than 200 families in my constituency had to abandon their homes as precautions that included moving furniture upstairs and placing sandbags against doors and windows proved quite inadequate to stem the flood waters. Some homes were flooded to a depth of 2 ft, and it is estimated that resultant insurance claims will exceed £2 million.
It is not difficult to imagine the despair felt by families in such circumstances. Their fear and anxiety at times of heavy or prolonged rainfall are distressing enough even when the river remains contained. Think how much worse it must be when the high water flows over retaining walls, flooding gardens, streets and houses. Property is damaged, often beyond repair. Families are forced to flee their homes, leaving possessions behind. It is usually many weeks after the water has receded before a return is possible and even then it is far from a return to normality.
Last month I witnessed events. On the evening of 1 January, a matter of weeks after the October floods, residents in Melbrae crescent and Woodfed street, which are regularly the areas worst affected by flooding in my constituency, were visited by police and warned that the White Cart was rising to dangerous levels. They were issued with sandbags. Fortunately, that was a false alarm and the water subsided two or three inches below the limits of the retaining walls. However, it was a close-run thing and yet another distressing occasion for residents. When I visited several of those residents the following day, they showed what I thought was remarkable self-restraint in the circumstances. I was struck by the fact that none of them had carpets in their homes. The explanation was simple: their floorboards had not dried out following the October flooding.
I have several distressing letters from constituents about the flooding, and I want to refer to one from Mrs. Margaret Morran of 450 Tantallon road. She lives in a sheltered complex for the elderly and she wrote to me about the night in October when the floods came, stating:
I was terrified as I watched the waters rising at the back of the house where the Cart flows and the front—in Tantallon Road … the residents … cannot take any more, people afraid of the future, afraid for themselves, afraid for their homes, afraid of the next downpour of rain, afraid to go to bed when they hear it—like myself!
What do we do, and the many people here who are over eighty years of age, when we hear a warning signal? Where do we go from a one-roomed house situated on the ground floor? Something must be done immediately.
She is absolutely right. Those people and many others are in a quite intolerable situation that cannot be allowed to continue.
The problem is becoming even more acute as the years pass. It will come as no surprise to anyone to learn that Glasgow has by far the highest rainfall in Scotland. However, as I said, it is getting worse. Between 1950 and 1980, Glasgow's average rainfall was 950 mm. In 1985 it was over 1,100 mm and last year it was more than 1,200 mm. Last year Glasgow also had its wettest three months since records began, with measurable rain for 70 consecutive days, culminating in the dreadful events of 5 and 6 October to which I referred a few moments ago.
What can be done about it? The Minister and his colleagues have written to me saying that responsibility lies with Strathclyde regional council and, strictly speaking,

that is the case. The Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 gave discretionary powers to local authorities to carry out flood prevention schemes to protect non-agricultural land. Eight years ago, the duty to warn of flooding—although, interestingly, not to prevent it—was passed to river boards in Scotland. The Clyde river purification board has just announced its decision to spend £96,000 on a computerised early warning system for the Cart. That is fine so far as it goes, but it does not go nearly far enough. It addresses the symptoms and not the cause of the problem.
The responsibility may rest technically with Strathclyde regional council, but how realistic is it to expect the authority to deal with the problem of the White Cart in the foreseeable future? For the Scottish Office to answer pleas for assistance with, "Go tell it to Strathclyde region," is disingenuous at best. The regional council's sewerage department had a project expenditure for 1990–91 of £26·5 million and the projected figure for 1991–92 is £30·1 million. The increase will be entirely eaten up by existing projects.
Nor can the region be accused of ignoring the problem of the White Cart. With regard to one of the Cart's feeders, the Broch burn, which has been a constant source of floods for a long time in the Pollok area, the Strathclyde regional council has committed £2·7 million this year for a flood relief scheme. It is also spending money on the Pollok relief sewer. At the same time, to expect the regional council to allocate in excess of £10 million for a scheme for the White Cart is not just unreasonable; it seriously underestimates the scale of the problem.
In 1987, the region commissioned a report from a firm of consulting engineers in Glasgow called Babtie, Shaw and Morton. It was asked to report on the flooding of the Cart and to recommend a solution. It produced a plan that involved the introduction of a flood storage scheme, the creation of flood plains and the construction of walls and embankments up to 2·5 m high. The estimated cost was in excess of £6 million, with another £2 million-plus needed to cover consequential effects downriver. That report was never acted upon, because the regional council faced greater priorities, largely as a result of the enhanced standards that it is required to meet in terms of water and sewerage.
It must be stressed that flood prevention is a discretionary, not statutory, requirement of the regional council. At present, Strathclyde regional council is involved in pruning £20 million from its current budget to meet Government-induced expenditure cuts and shortfalls in poll tax revenue. That involves cutting into budgets relating to its statutory duties, including education and social work, and it forms part of what will be a massive £60 million cut over the next two years.
The councillors are in an impossible situation—they are damned by the public if they do, and damned by the Secretary of State if they do not. When the region, the largest local authority in Britain, is unable to meet its statutory requirements, how can the Minister tell me that it should be prioritising discretionary duties? It simply has nothing to spare. Any attempt to point the finger at the regional council is buck-passing by the Government.
In my exchange of letters with Scottish Office Ministers, I have been advised that
exchequer grants of up to 30 per cent. would be available to the regional council for flood prevention schemes.


That is well known, but, if a suitable scheme cost even a modest £10 million—that is in 1987 figures, so it will clearly be more than that—it would leave the regional council needing to raise £7 million itself, and it simply cannot do it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West offered advice in an even more tongue-in-cheek fashion, when he wrote to me in October:
Authorities have flexibility to anticipate future capital allocations by up to 10 per cent. and are generally free to transfer funds between programmes to meet their assessment of overall priorities. In addition, capital allocations can be enhanced by generating capital receipts through the disposal of surplus assets, and capital expenditure can be financed from current revenue without being recorded against the capital allocations.
In other words: "Sell off the family silver, but don't look to us to help you." That will not wash with my constituents. There may even be EC funding available, but the bottom line is clearly that, unless the Government and the Scottish Office make special funding available, nothing will change in the foreseeable future.
I am well aware that other parts of Scotland are afflicted with flood-related problems, and my arguments this evening are in no sense to be taken as detracting from their needs. However, I was sent here to fight for the people of Glasgow, Central, and the pressing need now is for the Scottish Office to join that fight. As the House knows, countless millions were made available for the Thames flood barriers. Will the Scottish Office fight its corner for Glasgow as vigorously as the Government were prepared to fight for London? If not, why not?
Hundreds of constituents are living in houses that they cannot sell and are surrounded by furniture and possessions that they cannot insure. In desperation, following last October's floods a packed meeting of residents in Langside hall decided to form the White Cart Flooding Association. They have already set up a fighting fund, distributed petitions and written to the Scottish Office and to Strathclyde regional council. They deserve the right to live their lives free from anxiety, and only special funding from the Scottish Office will bring them peace of mind. In his letter to me, dated 16 January, the Minister said that he had "every sympathy" with those who had suffered distress and damage to property. They do not want sympathy; they want action, and I mean to see that they get it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) on having secured this Adjournment debate on behalf of his constituents, and I am glad to respond to it.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the severity of the effects of the flooding that occurred on Saturday 6 October. There is no dispute about the severity of what happened. As he said, many properties, businesses and roads in the Cathcart, Battlefield, Langside and Shawlands areas of Glasgow were inundated with floodwater from the White Cart water. The hon. Gentleman said that, in certain parts of the flooded area, residents had to be evacuated—indeed, elderly residents had to be evacuated from their houses by boat. Hon. Members will agree that that must have been a disturbing experience. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have every sympathy for all those who were affected by the flooding.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in paying tribute to the emergency services for the assistance which they provided on that occasion. The police issued the warning to which the hon. Gentleman referred and assisted with the evacuation of properties. The fire brigade also assisted people. The local authorities mobilised squads of workmen with lorries and sandbags to reduce the effects of the water. Three reception centres were set up and the housing office was open for temporary accommodation. In the event, however, I understand that few people remained in the reception areas overnight.
The response to the emergency is unlikely to have been made any easier by the fact that the flood reached its peak at about midday on the Saturday. Undoubtedly, that is a factor which the emergency services will have considered when assessing whether any improvements could be made to their procedures.
I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central that officials in my Department have discussed what happened with officials in Strathclyde regional council and officials from the Scottish Office have visited the area to see the position for themselves.
As the hon. Gentleman told the House, the beginning of October was a particularly wet period in Scotland. Although, within 20 km both north and south of Glasgow, the rainfall was barely noteworthy on 5 and 6 October, in the White Cart water catchment area, rainfall of more than 2 in was recorded between the evening of 5 October and early afternoon on 6 October. That rainfall, falling on an already saturated catchment area, resulted in a rapid run-off, generating a flood in the river, which passed through Cathcart during the morning and afternoon of 6 October. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the severity of the flood. I confirm that, at its peak, the flood was the third highest recorded, both upstream of the affected area at the Overlee gauging station established in 1981, and downstream at the Hawkhead gauging station, where records are available from 1964.
As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a long history of flooding in the areas. It is not a new problem. He said that records dating back to 1908 show that serious flooding has occurred on at least 16 occasions. My notes say 17, but we can broadly agree that there is a considerable history of serious flooding. In addition, observations suggest that minor flooding in the built-up areas occurs at least once every two years on average.
The interval between floods is extremely variable. To give the House one example, in January 1984, two major floods occurred within 12 days, whereas no serious flooding is recorded during the long period between 1932 and 1959—over a quarter of a century. That illustrates the unpredictability of such events.
The hon. Gentleman rightly focused on his case for flood prevention measures to improve protection against future flooding in the area. I am sure that the House has every sympathy with the sentiments that he expressed on behalf of his worried constituents. I assure him that the Scottish Office is aware of the desire for action. However, I must emphasise—this is not a technical but a real point —that the body with statutory powers for flood prevention—as he said, discretionary powers—is not the Scottish Office but Strathclyde regional council.
The council has wide powers under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 to take such measures as it sees fit to prevent or mitigate flooding of nonagricultural land in its area. To record the powers in detail,


the council may maintain or improve any watercourse in its area. In particular, section 4 of the Act provides that, apart from maintenance and management operations, flood prevention schemes made by the council must be approved by the Secretary of State.
It is at that point that the Secretary of State formally enters the decision-making process. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, in all fairness, will recognise that progress is therefore dependent in the first instance upon decisions made by the council. I give the hon. Member an assurance that any scheme for flood prevention on the White Cart water put forward by Strathclyde will receive serious consideration, but first, in the light of all the circumstances, the council has to decide what a flood prevention scheme would entail and whether it wishes to proceed with such a scheme. That is a right and proper procedure for it to undertake, and no one can criticise it for proceeding in that way. I do not criticise the council, as I think that the hon. Gentleman alleged I was going to.
The council was fully aware of the problems of flooding from the White Cart. Indeed, as the hon. Member told the House, it commissioned a firm of consulting engineers to study and report on possible flood alleviation measures, following the serious flooding in January 1984. That report contained a number of recommendations. For example, it recommended the construction of flood walls and embankments between Cathcart and Pollokshaws. The proposal was to build the works to a level which would provide protection against a flood with a theoretical return period of not less than 50 years. As the hon. Member told the House, at that time, the cost was estimated at £6 million, which at today's prices would exceed £10 million.
At that time, a similar investigation was carried out by the consultants in respect of the Brock burn and Levern water. I should perhaps declare a personal interest in Levern water, as it passes in front of my house, although rather further upstream. The report identified flood prevention measures that would provide protection against the one in 100-year flood, which were estimated to cost about £1·25 million.
I understand that Strathclyde regional council is currently preparing detailed proposals for a flood prevention scheme on the Brock burn and Levern water and has made provision in its financial plan for expenditure of £2·7 million over the period 1992–94. Those proposals will no doubt be widely welcomed by the local community.
The hon. Member mentioned resources. As he will know, flood prevention comes within the Scottish water and sewerage capital expenditure programmes. Provision for that programme has been substantially increased in recent years. For example, in the 1989 public expenditure survey, the programme was set at more than £500 million for the three-year period 1990–91 to 1992–93. The hon. Member will also know that, as part of the 1990 survey, the Government recently announced another substantial increase in resources. For 1991–92, the investment level for the water and sewerage programme has been set at £167 million, rising to £238 million in 1993–94. The three-year programme now totals more than £620 million. The figure

of £238 million for 1993–94 is two-thirds higher than the provision for the current year, and more than double the level for 1988–89.
That increased provision takes account of the needs identified by regional councils in their financial plans. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the provision already announced to Strathclyde broadly meets the programme that the council has submitted. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, if Strathclyde regional council were to decide to promote a flood prevention scheme for the White Cart water and to make provision in its financial plan, it would receive serious consideration. I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that if such a proposal were to come forward, at that stage, of course, I would be happy to meet the hon. Member and a delegation from his constituency, if he thought that that would be helpful. However, we do not have a scheme before us, and it is for the council to decide whether or not it wants to promote one. Priorities and the timing of projects are matters for the council to decide.
As to the provision for Strathclyde, that has risen from £45 million in 1989–90 to a provisional allocation of £71 million for 1991–92—and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the final 1992–93 allocation will be at least the provisional figure.
The hon. Gentleman quoted a letter from the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), pointing out that authorities have flexibility in determining available resources, which is a point of some importance. Authorities can, in the light of their own priorities, make a limited switch of resources between various blocks of expenditure—and they can also fund capital projects from current revenue without that counting against their capital allocations.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that special funding should be made available to Strathclyde for the specific purpose of a flood prevention scheme on the White Cart. As he knows, capital allocations are not granted for specific schemes, because it is for councils to determine their own priorities according to local needs. Any departure from that approach would limit the discretion presently available to local authorities.
That general approach has been consistently supported by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—which, rightly, wants to defend that discretion and has not wanted to go down the road of earmarked funds for particular capital projects, as that would undermine the discretion that they can apply.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that, under flood prevention legislation, Exchequer grants are already available to regional councils. In the case of Strathclyde, the grant would be 30 per cent. of the eligible costs of an improved scheme.
I dwelt at some length on the powers and flexibility that regional councils have in commissioning flood protection works. However, I readily acknowledge that, even if Strathclyde decided to go ahead now with a White Cart scheme, there would be a lengthy planning and construction period, and residents would continue to feel apprehensive every time there was heavy rain and the river started to rise.
Of immediate benefit will be an advance warning system, which would allow appropriate action to be taken. The hon. Gentleman referred to the decision by Clyde river purification board, in response to strong representations made by him and by councillors, including Councillor


James Shields, to implement a flood warning system for the White Cart water. Work on the instrumentation of that complex catchment and development of a mathematical model is proceeding. Final commissioning of the system will take about a year.
Meanwhile, the availability of improved information about rainfall and catchment response from the new instrumentation should allow for much better advance warning of possible flooding. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is a positive measure and one which will be welcomed by his constituents. I congratulate

him on taking this opportunity to put his constituents' concerns before the House. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that if, after taking account of all its priorities, Strathclyde regional council decides to bring forward a flood prevention scheme for the White Cart water, I shall be happy to discuss it personally with the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, if he wishes.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Twelve o'clock.